PancakeTheoryFallsFlatAccordingToNIST

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:22 pm

Does the Pancake Theory of the WTC fall flat on its face according to the NIST?

Please read NIST website:

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

You can find this paragraph right above the image diagram of Composite WTC Floor System.

So is the NIST wrong and the government right?

Frigidus · Post by **Frigidus** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:28 pm

Huh...this isn't xtratabasco at all.

The Weird One · Post by **The Weird One** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:30 pm

[coughs] xtra's multi [/coughs]

Frigidus · Post by **Frigidus** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:30 pm

On the upside you had a fair vote. NIST in fact does not agree with the pancake theory.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:30 pm

Frigidus wrote:Huh...this isn't xtratabasco at all.

Nope. I hardly ever post on this stuff, but Xtra got my attention on one of his last posts about this, so I actually researched into it, and the NIST clearly does not support the theory the government wants you to believe.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:31 pm

Frigidus wrote:On the upside you had a fair vote. NIST in fact does not agree with the pancake theory.

I like to stick to facts and try not to form my own implications. This seems to be a fact. And it seems that you will also agree with it.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:33 pm

The Weird One wrote:[coughs] xtra's multi [/coughs]

Those coughs sound contagious...LOL!

but is the NIST wrong and the government right on the pancake theory?

Frigidus · Post by **Frigidus** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:36 pm

DaGip wrote:
The Weird One wrote:[coughs] xtra's multi [/coughs]
Those coughs sound contagious...LOL! but is the NIST wrong and the government right on the pancake theory?

Whether or not it did pancake or not is debatable, but I refuse to give any credit to xtra. He goes from "the building fell differently than the way the government said so" to "OMG BUSH DID 9/11s! ALSO HE BLEW UP THE SEPTAGON!"

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:41 pm

It is absolutely clear to me that the NIST refutes the government's claim to the Pancake Theory. I am not trying to go any further than this (Bush bashing, other conspiracy theories, etc...). I only want you guys and gals to read and see this with your own eyes so that you can draw your own conclusions on the matter. And if you answered Yes to the poll question, it is considered the same as a Denial vote...hehe.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:02 pm

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

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

This is the last paragraph on this NIST WTC answers site.

xtratabasco · Post by **xtratabasco** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:47 pm

DaGip

on my 3 911 posts they attack my spelling and word usage because that is all they got, with you it will be different, but it looks like they are not interested with you or the truth.

Im surprised Backglass hasnt responded, most respect him and he probably wouldnt attack you personally.

why dont you PM him and s.kitten

and good luck, these players dont want to face the truth, they live in denial and lies, its easier for them, maybe pray for them.

I will try to stay off this post and watch the debate, if they have the courage to do so.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:52 pm

xtratabasco wrote:DaGip

on my 3 911 posts they attack my spelling and word usage because that is all they got, with you it will be different, but it looks like they are not interested with you or the truth.

Im surprised Backglass hasnt responded, most respect him and he probably wouldnt attack you personally.

why dont you PM him and s.kitten

and good luck, these players dont want to face the truth, they live in denial and lies, its easier for them, maybe pray for them.

I will try to stay off this post and watch the debate, if they have the courage to do so.

You. Are. So. Full. Of. Shit. Check. The. Thread. Again. For. The. Pictures. You. Requested.

The1exile · Post by **The1exile** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:53 pm

Ooh, it's like caps lock for smart people.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:54 pm

The1exile wrote:Ooh, it's like caps lock for smart people.

Because it takes a lot of effort (at least in my book).

xtratabasco · Post by **xtratabasco** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:59 pm

see what I mean.

they wont go with your topic.

they only attack me

shows that they dont have a foot to stand on and rely on red herrings.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:14 pm

We attack you because you can't respond to a post.

xtratabasco · Post by **xtratabasco** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:15 pm

unriggable wrote:We attack you because you can't respond to a post.

and you cant keep this on topic.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:52 pm

Still seems that that pancake theory is not accepted by NIST. And why so many people in denial over it? Spock would be befuddled..

xtratabasco · Post by **xtratabasco** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:51 pm

I just sent a PM to backglass, heavy cola and s.kitten to check a different players perspective on 911, this one here.

Let see if they have the courage to reply to you.

1st response back in from s. kitten.

she told me to go cut my wrists.

more from s.kitten

The government didn't do this. I've proved it, but if you wish to believe otherwise, so be it. What gets to me is that you are pushing these beliefs on everyone else. People who don't want to hear it.

and this

I don't believe I'm 'right to a T'. As I have stated before, the government probably did have some part in this, I just don't believe that they actually committed 9/11. I simply believe that they ignored previous warnings.

WOW

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:54 pm

xtra, considering that the poll at least isn't so one sided, it may be better then the ones you have done.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:40 pm

I am sorry that the post isn't quite as interesting when the facts are not disputed by the majority...I will try better on the next post. LOL!

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:15 am

"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."

OK, fine by me...another reasonable theory. Note that there is still no "controlled demolition" conspiracy.

I have never said that our governments answer is 100% correct. Only that Xtratabascos wild conspiracy theories are not.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:47 am

Backglass wrote:"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."

OK, fine by me...another reasonable theory. Note that there is still no "controlled demolition" conspiracy.

I have never said that our governments answer is 100% correct. Only that Xtratabascos wild conspiracy theories are not.

Stick to the topic. The topic is Does the NIST support the pancake theory? Really just a simple yes or no question. i don't want to make this post grounds for attacks on individuals that you may or may not agree with (notably xtra). Quite simply the NIST clearly does not support the pancake theory and in addition, according to the final paragraph of that link, is in the process of including hypothetical explosive devices to account for the descrepentcies:

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.

and

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

My only opinion in this post is that the NIST clearly states that it does not support the Pancake Theory. The rest of the NIST report about controlled demolition has nothing to do with this post, but, it is clearly stated at the final paragraph that the NIST is also considering including what they call hypothetical blast events. Though NIST says that it has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, does not mean that it does not exist. The NIST report is not final, it is an ongoing investigation.

xtratabasco · Post by **xtratabasco** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:03 pm

NIST will hold out as long as possible, until the damn of lies starts to break then thell come out and say, yes it was explosives, just like Rodreguz and dozens and dozens of policemen and firemen heard BEFORE the plane hit the 2nd tower

s.xkitten · Post by **s.xkitten** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:06 pm

i'm not afraid to debate it...its just already been done before. He's repeating your thread, and i'm not going to repeat everything i've already posted.

PancakeTheoryFallsFlatAccordingToNIST

Does the NIST support the Pancake Theory?

PancakeTheoryFallsFlatAccordingToNIST