NIST debunks its own Pancaking Theory?

[rollingrock]

In an interview published in the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, Shyam Sunder the lead NIST investigator states:

Violent Collapse: Pancaking floors — not controlled demolition —
expel debris and smoke out South Tower windows. (Photograph by AP/Wide World Photos)

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "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."

www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

This is pretty much the same thing Sunder and the NIST people said when they appeared on the major networks to give interviews about their findings, so the "pancake theory," or as I like to call it the IHOP theory, is one of the major things the official story is most famous for, in addition to the famous Popular Mechanics interview. However, on the FAQ page of their website, NIST denies that pancaking ever took place, without any apparent explanation for the about-face.

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.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Is someone having trouble keeping their stories straight?

[AZCat]

1. That "someone" would be you.

Perhaps you should read the actual pages you cite, rather than skimming and looking for key words or phrases. That might help you keep your stories straight in the future.

[rollingrock]

2. What are you babbling about now?

I have no idea what nonsense you speak of, so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head.

[AZCat]

3. No, of course you have no idea what I'm saying.

Reading comprehension obviously isn't your strong point. Something like context is apparently beyond your grasp, as seen by the OP.

[rollingrock]

5. So exactly what is this so-called 'context' you speak of?

Is it so confusing and nonsensical that you OCTers won't even bother to explain it?
Because you can't?


Spin spin spin-city. I'm dying to hear the spin on this one.

:popcorn:

[AZCat]

9. If you couldn't figure it out when you first read those articles...

I'm not sure if it's worth trying to explain to you. You can try to put the blame on the NIST and us, but that's not where the fault lies. It isn't complicated, it just requires letting go of your considerable bias and considering the arguments on their merits alone. I don't think you can do that.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. I hold out more hope for the bunny understanding this than you. n/t

[rollingrock]

6. You are correct, sir.

Deciphering gibberish is not one of my strong suits.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Really?

You seem to dispense it so well.

[rollingrock]

8. So was NIST the original source of the Pancaking Theory or not?

if not, then who was?

[AZCat]

10. This is an ignoratio elenchi.

Please try to stay on point.

[rollingrock]

11. What is your point? Or do you have one?

NIST has apparently contradicted itself in a major way, which is what this thread is about, in case you haven't noticed, or refuse to notice.

I only want to know, do you think the Pancaking Theory is a valid one or not?

[AZCat]

12. I wasn't the one straying...

Perhaps you should mind your own posts a little more closely.

[rollingrock]

13. Am I in the The Twilight Zone now?

Whatever you are smoking, please keep it to yourself.

[AZCat]

14. Your inability to understand is at least consistent.

If we could only do something about that attitude...

[rollingrock]

15. I do not understand nonsensical gibberish

Sorry to disappoint you!

[AZCat]

16. It doesn't appear you understand things that make sense, either.

Hence the mistake of an OP, and the subsequent direction of this thread.

[rollingrock]

17. The NIST Report might makes sense

to a crackhead or a Scientologist.

Fortunately, I am neither of those. lol.

[AZCat]

18. It also makes sense to people who are knowledgeable in physics and engineering.

These people are, I believe, the target audience, rather than crackpots and Scientologists.

[William Seger]

20. Here's a hint

The "pancake theory" in your quote from the NIST report is a reference to a very specific theory about the initial event that triggered the total collapse: The "pancake theory" was that the collapse started when a floor broke loose from the perimeter wall and "pancaked" on the floor below. As the NIST report clearly says, that theory was abandoned because the evidence is that the collapse started when the perimeter columns buckled.

The "Pancaking floors — not controlled demolition — expel debris and smoke" in your first quote is talking about what happened after the collapse started, so it has nothing whatsoever to do with the "pancake theory" of what started the collapse.

Get it now?


Here's another hint: When you parrot bullshit you've picked up from "truther" sites without understanding what's wrong with it, there's a 100% chance of being ridiculed.

[AZCat]

21. Awww...

It's no fun if you give him the answers. :(

[rollingrock]

22. Who did they hire to write the NIST report? L. Ron Hubbard?

What happened to the core columns?

Does NIST think that the Towers were a hollow steel shaft, as indicated in the 9/11 commission report? Why do they fail to mention a single word about what happened to the core columns? They go on about they claim is the 'buckling of the perimeter walls but fail to say anything about happened to the core columns, as if the perimeter walls were the only thing holding the buildings up.

That's an amazing piece of science fiction right there.

[hack89]

24. What's your point?

how would the core columns prevented collapse once the perimeter wall buckled and the connections between them and the floor pans failed?

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Obviously the point escapes such Scientologists as yourself

:sarcasm:

[rollingrock]

27. The NIST report is pseudo-science junk

To suggest that an impact at the upper section of the towers caused all 110 stories of the perimeter columns to somehow hail is quite a stretch. That's like expecting a house to collapse because you took out one or two ceiling beams supporting the roof. That will never cause the house to collapse because the foundation remains intact.

And anything that portends to explain the collapse of the WTC buildings without mentioning the core columns, which were literally the backbone and foundation of the Twin Towers that held up to 90% of their weight, is a work of science fiction at best. And they don't even bother to explain the mechanism that brought down Building 7.

[hack89]

28. OK - thanks for making it all so clear. What was I thinking? nt

[rollingrock]

31. Don't mention it. /nt

[AZCat]

29. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's "pseudo-science junk".

Reading this post, it's clear there is a lot you don't understand (including the definition of "portend"). Remember: arrogance is not a replacement for actual knowledge, even on the internets.

[rollingrock]

30. Thanks for the advice AZCat

Its like opening a fortune cookie every time I read your posts. :7

[AZCat]

32. I'd much rather you opened your eyes.

Your bias and ego seem to have blinded you, to your own detriment.

[rollingrock]

33. Whatever you say, Confucious

Would you like another helping?

[AZCat]

34. It's your choice, of course.

You can continue down the path of arrogance and willful ignorance. It's certainly a well-traveled route. Those of us staying on the path of rationality and logic wish you the best.

[William Seger]

26. The authors are listed. Maybe you should hire someone to read it to you

> "Why do they fail to mention a single word about what happened to the core columns? They go on about they claim is the 'buckling of the perimeter walls but fail to say anything about happened to the core columns, as if the perimeter walls were the only thing holding the buildings up."

That's an easy one: You don't know what you're talking about. The report says quite a bit about the core. It was certainly included in their failure analysis model and in their probable collapse sequences. Which "truther" site told you it didn't, and why do you base your opinions of the report on such nonsense?

The science behind the NIST collapse hypothesis is really not very hard to understand. Anyone who would attempt a criticism of that hypothesis and expect to be taken seriously will need to start by actually understanding it. You're off to a very bad start.

[rollingrock]

35. The problem with that is...

"As the NIST report clearly says, that theory was abandoned because the evidence is that the collapse started when the perimeter columns buckled."

...problem is, the NIST people never treated the pancake theory as a theory, but presented their idea as though it was fact. There's nothing wrong with saying something like, 'we're not sure what cause the towers to collapse at this time, but we are currently working on a new hypotheses we came up with that we are testing out, we call it the 'Pancake Theory'...and then go on to explain the theory. That's how the scientific method is suppose to work. That's the proper scientific procedure taught in every 9th grade science class. But that's not how NIST presented their ideas at all, preferring to start with a conclusion and trying to make the facts fit the conclusion, and presenting an untested theory as though it were scientific fact. In doing so, NIST have violated every rule in the book and made a mockery of standard scientific practices, which shouldn't all be too surprising considering that they were working under the most anti-science administration in history.

[AZCat]

36. I don't think you know what you are talking about (again).

It's news to me (and the others, I'm sure) that "the NIST people never treated the pancake theory as a theory, but presented their idea as though it was fact." Considering that they rejected that hypothesis (as explained in the very same part of the NIST WTC FAQ you excerpted in the OP), it's hard to see how they are presenting it as fact.

Then again, maybe you're just wrong.

[rollingrock]

37. Where in the article does PM and Sunder say that pancaking is only a theory?

please point that out.

because the casual reader will perceive it as a fact. and they know that 99% of the public are causal readers who get their info from 3r party sources like PM, not the actual report. it gives them a nice propaganda effect while CYA'ng (covering their ass) in the report which they know most will never bother to look at.

[AZCat]

40. This goes back to your fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

You need to look at both links (the NIST FAQ and the PM article) and read carefully. Notice the difference in useage of the word "pancake"? In the PM article, Shyam Sunder is using the term "pancaking" to describe a symptom of the collapse - the falling of one floor onto another - in order to explain the compression of air in the building, and the subsequent expulsion of air and debris from the collapsing structure. PM screws up (not an infrequent occurrence) when they combine this use of the term with "pancaking" as a cause of collapse, which NIST kindly clarifies and rejects in their FAQ. If you read the actual NIST report on the collapses you'd understand the mechanism, and hence the difference between the NIST hypothesis and the so-called "pancake theory", much better.

I don't really care what "casual readers" think of the work of the NIST, because they're not the intended audience. They don't design or build buildings, and the technicalities of the discussion are beyond them anyway. 99% of the public could think the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man brought the towers down and it would still be wrong.




On Edit: Whoops, I meant misunderstanding.

[Realityhack]

43. You do realize that acording ot popular mechanics

we should all have been flying cars to work for the last 20 years or so.

PM is NOT a peer reviewed engineering journal. They make mistakes of all types.

NIST Is an actual engineering group. I don't think they care that much what laypeople think. They certainly try to explain things in simplified language in places like their FAQ pages, but if someone like you doesn't understand it I don't think they would be in any way surprised.

NIST did use the scientific process. As was pointed out they had an idea about what started the collapse... they later found contrary evidence and rejected the theory. You seem to be trying to twist that around and somehow claim that they had some unscientific attachment to that theory.
The facts show you are wrong, and that you clearly do not understand the context of what you originally posted.

If you want AZCat and others here who have a better understanding of engineering to help you understand, don't post garbage from truth movement sites as if they are factual. Post the stuff then politely ask what you are missing. Admit you don't understand and ask for answers.

Otherwise you will continue to just look ignorant as you post silly claims that don't even make sense.

[William Seger]

41. No, the "problem is" you don't know what you're talking about

... but you keep right on talking.

> "...problem is, the NIST people never treated the pancake theory as a theory, but presented their idea as though it was fact."

Bullshit. And you'd know that if you'd actual read their reports. But you haven't and likely never will, so I guess you need another hint: The "pancake theory" was advanced by FEMA, not by NIST, and NIST never considered it to be more than one possible hypothesis. And even the theory presented in the final report was called the "probable cause" -- not a "fact" -- and it was presented with a huge amount of evidence and analysis to substantiate why they believed it to be the most probable explanation. The most convincing pieces evidence -- facts, not theory -- are that the perimeter columns began bending inward well in advance of the collapse, and clearly buckled inward at the start of the collapse. So, it's a perfectly reasonable theory which has virtually unanimous acceptance among qualified experts, whether or not rollingrock understands it. On the other hand, we have the "truth movement" continuing to advance theories that are laughably implausible (unless Rube Goldberg was the chief planner), advanced by people who apparently don't know what the hell they're talking about when it comes to physics and engineering, and not substantiated by anything remotely resembling scientific evidence and rational argument, while completely ignoring the large body of facts that contradict or aren't explained by those theories, such as that column bending and buckling, the lack of anything sounding like a CD at the start of the collapses, or any evidence of seismological disturbances like even a small CD.

> "There's nothing wrong with saying something like, 'we're not sure what cause the towers to collapse at this time, but we are currently working on a new hypotheses we came up with that we are testing out, we call it the 'Pancake Theory'...and then go on to explain the theory. That's how the scientific method is suppose to work."

Other than your misconception about who originated the "pancake theory", that's how it did work in this case, your ignorance and distortions notwithstanding.

> "But that's not how NIST presented their ideas at all, preferring to start with a conclusion and trying to make the facts fit the conclusion, and presenting an untested theory as though it were scientific fact."

That's 180 degrees away from the truth. If it were true, we'd see the "pancake theory" as the "probable cause" in the final report. It's ironic that it also contradicts your assertion in the OP that NIST had debunked itself. Your ability to hypocritically twist the truth to fit your own delusions would be comical, if it wasn't so pathetic.

You haven't read the NIST reports and the OP shows that you don't understand what very little you know about them. You make false assertions and argue with faulty reasoning. Why, exactly, do you expect to be taken seriously?

[wildbilln864]

38. exactly!

Thank you!

[rollingrock]

23. btw...

are you a scientologist by any chance?

[wildbilln864]

39. I am...

:rofl: ...an anti-scientologist!

[mrgerbik]

19. LOL!

[Realityhack]

42. I would like to point out that the OP visualy disproves all the CT's

that claim the towers fell strait down without resistance. The photo is an excellent illustration of the fact that the top of the towers did in fact rotate during the collapse initiation.

[rollingrock]

44. Honestly

Many buildings known to be brought down by CD do not fall perfectly straight down.
Many of them do tilt at a sleight angle for a second or two at the beginning and then straighten out as they drop, just as the Towers did on 9/11.

And how do you explain Building 7, which did actually come down in a perfectly straight angle from beginning to end?

[Bolo Boffin]

45. Building 7 did NOT come down in a perfectly straight angle from beginning to end

Stop saying that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQeQi5XXfz0

Building 7 fell to the south, toward the damage caused by debris from WTC 7.

This was already known by the way the debris ended up, with the northern facade draped over the rest of the debris pile. That could only have happened if the building fell over during the crush up, just as the video shows the building to be doing.

[rollingrock]

46. Here's a video with a bunch of known CDs

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1qgx95SFds&feature=related

As you can see, they are coming down at a noticeable tilt, which is characteristic of CDs.
Most don't fall perfectly straight down. That seems pretty clear.

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Make up your mind.

The whole fucking point of the CD hypothesis has been that CD's come straight down into their own footprints. And now you're here claiming that CDs come down at a tilt???

Is this your final answer?

[rollingrock]

48. Straight down is a relative term

...Relative to what would be impossible without the aid of explosives, that is. People use the term 'straight down' in common everyday language and the meaning is implied. Common sense tells you that, or should. I know you're not dumb, you just like to play silly semantic games.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. I see. It's "straight down" when you feel like emphasizing that and "tilting" when you decide to

emphasize that.

And I'm the one playing silly semantic games? :eyes: