{"id":2708,"date":"2015-01-21T02:31:37","date_gmt":"2015-01-21T07:31:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kendoc911.wordpress.com\/?page_id=2708"},"modified":"2015-01-21T02:31:37","modified_gmt":"2015-01-21T07:31:37","slug":"the-many-theories-from-nist","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/911warroom.com\/kendoc\/nist\/the-many-theories-from-nist\/","title":{"rendered":"THE MANY THEORIES FROM NIST"},"content":{"rendered":"

THE MANY THEORIES FROM NIST\/FEMA\/ETC<\/strong><\/p>\n

9\/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=7ySUrEiVFIM
\n————————————-<\/p>\n

1) \u201cPANCAKE THEORY\u201d \/ \u201cPROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

“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.”
\nhttp:\/\/www.popularmechanics.com\/military\/a6384\/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center\/
\n———
\nDebunking Novas Pancake Theory of WTC using common sense
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU<\/p>\n

\"nova\"<\/a>
\n————
\nWHY THE TOWERS FELL – Transcript
\nhttp:\/\/www.pbs.org\/wgbh\/nova\/transcripts\/2907_wtc.html<\/p>\n

“MATTHYS LEVY (Author, Why Buildings Fall Down): As the steel began to soften and melt, the interior core columns began to give. Then you had this sequential failure that took place where it all pancaked\u2014one after the other.<\/p>\n

“NARRATOR: This footage shows the process in action. A line of columns in the outer skeleton snaps. The top of the building then lurches outwards and falls. As it does so, it dislodges many more floor trusses. Once the trusses fail, the floors they were holding cascade down with a force too great to be withstood. The result is what’s called a “progressive collapse,” as each floor pancakes down onto the one below.”
\n———–
\n“Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively “pancaked” to the ground.” – World Trade Center – Some Engineering Aspects, Tim Wilkinson, University of Sydney
\nhttp:\/\/sydney.edu.au\/engineering\/civil\/wtc.shtml
\n————–
\nReply to NIST
\nhttp:\/\/gordonssite.tripod.com\/id3.html
\n“NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder stated, “Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception.”
\n————-<\/p>\n

REBUTTAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are no stacks of \u201cpancakes\u201d within the rubble. Only sections of the lobby skeleton remains.<\/p>\n

Debunking Novas Pancake Theory of WTC using common sense
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU
\n———–
\nWTC – NOVA Why The Towers Fell – Another big lie
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=JmCEtG2gUCI
\n————
\nNOVA | Engineering Ground Zero
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=nYPpWhiIXuk
\n———-
\nNOVA Says WTC Was Not A Progressive Collapse
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=_E7Dpgme200
\n———–
\nPancake Theory Refuted
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=9nLg4HlHYTA&
\n———-<\/p>\n

NIST ADMITS PANCAKE THEORY FALSE<\/strong><\/p>\n

NIST admits pancake theory false:
\nhttp:\/\/sci.tech-archive.net\/pdf\/Archive\/sci.physics\/2008-11\/msg00627.pdf
\n———–
\nShyam Sunder Admits There Was No Pancake Effect<\/p>\n

WTC – collapse revised
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=ZHng42BpHDc
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=XpfDkL-vFdk<\/p>\n

“and we did not see any evidence of pancaking in the videos or photographs we have.” – Shyam Sunder NIST
\nhttp:\/\/www.pbs.org\/wgbh\/nova\/transcripts\/3311_wtc.html
\n————–
\n\u201cNIST’s findings do not support the \u201cpancake theory\u201d of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers […] 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.\u201d
\n– NIST WTC FAQ (question 8)
\nhttp:\/\/www.nist.gov\/el\/disasterstudies\/wtc\/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
\nhttp:\/\/wtc.nist.gov\/pubs\/factsheets\/faqs_8_2006.htm
\n————
\nNIST’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
\nhttp:\/\/911research.wtc7.net\/essays\/nist\/<\/p>\n

“Selling Progressive Collapse<\/p>\n

The Report mentions “progressive collapse” 16 times, mostly in sections describing recommendations. It defines progressive collapse as when “a building or portion of a building collapses due to disproportionate spread of an initial local failure” but does not mention how rare the phenomenon is or that there are no examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed buildings outside of 9\/11\/01.<\/p>\n

By repeatedly invoking the specter of “progressive collapse” while concealing the phenomenon’s lack of repeatability outside of “terrorist incidents,” the Report surreptitiously bolsters its supposition that “global collapse” automatically follows from “collapse initiation.””
\n————
\nFinally, an Apology From the National Geographic Channel
\nhttp:\/\/911review.com\/articles\/ryan\/NationalGeographicApology.html<\/p>\n

“Two years later, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) finally made clear that its “findings do not support the \u02dcpancake theory’ of collapse.”
\n———–<\/p>\n

EXAMPLES OF PANCAKES COLLAPSE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

9\/11 Experiment: Concrete evidence. Does it pulverize when falling?
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=aa6pyPi386k&<\/p>\n

Here is an example of a “Pancake” collapse.
\nhttp:\/\/www.librariansfor911truth.org\/impossiblecollapse.html<\/p>\n\n

CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\n

The “Pancake Theory” is false. There are no stacks of floors.<\/p>\n

——————————-<\/p>\n

2) \u201cTRUSS PULL IN \/ PULL OUT THEORY\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe heat expanded the steel in the truss in all directions. As a result they also expanded into the columns. The trusses\/floor system, sagged in the middle because the columns were preventing the trusses from expanding in their direction. That led to the bowing of the exterior columns.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"nistcoll_truss\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"inwardbowingtheory\"<\/a>
\n————-
\n\"Inward<\/a><\/p>\n

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9\/11 “Controlled Demolition” Theory
\nwww.representativepress.org\/BowingDebunksExplosives.html
\nwww.representativepress.org\/BowingDebunksExplosives2.html
\n——-
\nFacts “9\/11 Skeptics” don’t want you to see: REAL 911 Truth
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=sGAoRrBoPRM
\n——-
\nEast Face of WTC 2 – 9:21 AM Maximum inward bowing of approx. 10 in.
\n(18 min after impact)
\n911motive.tripod.com\/WTC2EastFace921.html
\n——-
\nSouth Tower Collapse: Ejected Objects from East Face (Core Columns?)
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=0fbk3SoKdIE
\n————–<\/p>\n

REBUTTAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

What’s missing from NIST’s simulation?<\/p>\n

Besides the center core, bridging trusses and the steel deck, Nist totally left out the concrete floors! So this whole theory of the “truss Pull in” is totally flawed because the concrete floors would not have “sagged” with the trusses causing this “inward bowing.” The concrete floors would have remained in tact.<\/p>\n

NIST WTC-report. What a laugh …
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=-RzwmD8uB8g<\/p>\n

\"Wtc_floor_truss_system\"<\/a>
\nwww.upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/8\/86\/Wtc_floor_truss_system.png
\n——–
\n9\/11 Skepticism: NIST floor test
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=4W37g_uLYNs<\/p>\n

\"nisttest\"<\/a><\/p>\n

NIST\u2019s own tests failed to weaken or melt the WTC steel.
\n———–
\nThe “Truss Theory”:
\nA Fantasy Concocted to Conceal a Demolition
\nhttp:\/\/whatreallyhappened.com\/WRHARTICLES\/trusstheory.html<\/p>\n

The Truss Failure Theory
\nhttp:\/\/911research.wtc7.net\/disinfo\/collapse\/trusses.html
\nhttp:\/\/911research.wtc7.net\/wtc\/analysis\/official\/trusses.html
\n——————–
\nStructural Steel
\nhttp:\/\/thermalimages.nfshost.com\/index.php\/Structural_Steel<\/p>\n

“11.2.3. How does a fire impact steel connections? Does it affect connections differently than the members themselves?
\nThe connections usually contain more material (additional plates, bolts, etc.) than the connected members. Also, connections often have less exposure to heat and higher capacity for heat dissipation because of their proximity to other members. Therefore, temperatures are likely to develop faster in members than in connections, making connections less critical for fire-protection design.” aisc.org
\n———–
\nWhy the NIST WTC Report on the Towers is False
\nWhy the NIST WTC Report on the Towers is False<\/a><\/p>\n

“Unfortunately, NIST\u2019s report provided only a hypothesis of the events leading up to the initiation of the collapses, or the \u201ccollapse initiation sequence.\u201d NIST did not attempt to explain how, once the collapses initiated, the upper sections of these 110-story skyscrapers would continue falling downward through the path of greatest resistance, instead simply asserting that, once each building was destabilized, \u201cglobal collapse ensued.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, we can examine the general features of NIST\u2019s collapse initiation sequence for both Twin Towers to see if it is consistent with known facts, or is at least self-consistent.<\/p>\n

The seven steps of NIST\u2019s collapse initiation sequence that are common to both Twin Towers are as follows:[1]<\/p>\n

1. A number of columns were severed by aircraft impact
\n2. Loads were redistributed to the remaining columns
\n3. Fireproofing was \u201cwidely dislodged\u201d
\n4. Columns and floor assemblies were softened by high temperatures
\n5. Softened floor assemblies began to sag
\n6. Sagging floors pulled the exterior columns inward, causing columns to buckle
\n7. Instability spread around the exterior of the building”
\n—————
\nWTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9\/11 “Controlled Demolition” Theory?
\nhttp:\/\/911debunkers.blogspot.com\/2010\/07\/wtc-pre-collapse-bowing-debunks-911.html<\/p>\n

“1) It is only an initial event, and does not provide any explanation for the global collapse events.
\n2) Its cause is based purely on speculation. The bowing may have occurred, but there is no evidence that supports that fire alone could have caused this, let alone after only a few minutes of fire.
\n3) If this was so obvious, why wasn’t it the FIRST theory of collapse and not the THIRD theory of collapse?”
\n———————————–<\/p>\n

3) \u201cPILE DRIVER THEORY\u201d (BAZANT AND ZHOU)<\/strong><\/p>\n

“the pile-driver or crush-down theory in which the tops of the Towers act as giant sledgehammers.”<\/p>\n

\"Bazant\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"bazant<\/a><\/p>\n

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis
\nBy Zden\u02c7ek P. Ba\u02c7zant, Fellow ASCE, and Yong Zhou<\/p>\n

Bazant and Zhou were the first people to release their theory as to what happened to the Towers. Take note: Bazant wrote this paper 2 days after 9\/11.<\/p>\n

Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press 9\/13\/01, Expanded 9\/22\/01, Appendices 9\/28\/01
\nhttp:\/\/www-math.mit.edu\/~bazant\/WTC\/WTC-asce.pdf
\nhttp:\/\/www-math.mit.edu\/~bazant\/WTC\/
\nhttp:\/\/www.civil.northwestern.edu\/people\/bazant\/PDFs\/Papers\/405.pdf
\n————
\n“It was as if the top of the building was acting like a huge pile-driver, crashing down on to the floors underneath”
\n– Chris Wise (quoted by the BBC )
\nhttp:\/\/news.bbc.co.uk\/2\/hi\/americas\/1540044.stm
\n———–
\nMechanics of Progressive Collapse:
\nLearning from World Trade Center
\nand Building Demolitions
\nZdenek P. Ba \u2022 \u2022zant and Mathieu Verdure
\nhttp:\/\/www.nistreview.org\/WTC-PROGRESSIVE-COLLAPSE-BAZANT.pdf
\n————<\/p>\n

REBUTTAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

What Newton has to say about the collapse of WTC
\nhttp:\/\/infoalternativas.blogspot.ca\/2013\/04\/what-newton-has-to-say-about-collapse.html<\/p>\n

\"newtosn3rdlaw\"<\/a>
\n———-
\nPiledriver Theory:
\nhttp:\/\/911review.com\/coverup\/fantasy\/piledriver.html
\nhttp:\/\/911research.wtc7.net\/disinfo\/collapse\/piledriver.html
\nhttp:\/\/911research.wtc7.net\/disinfo\/experts\/articles\/bazant_jem\/bazant_zhou.html<\/p>\n

The Column Failure Theory
\nhttp:\/\/911research.wtc7.net\/disinfo\/collapse\/columns.html
\n———–
\nTHE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE MECHANICS OF ZDENEK BAZANT
\nhttp:\/\/www.sharpprintinginc.com\/911\/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=272&MMN_position=529:529
\n———-
\nPut up or Shut up: A Year in Review
\nhttp:\/\/911debunkers.blogspot.ca\/2010\/04\/put-up-or-shut-up-year-in-review.html
\n———–
\nNIST Piles it Higher and Deeper: Structural Engineer Anders Bj\u00f6rkman Refutes Dr. Zdenek Bazant
\nhttp:\/\/norcaltruth.org\/2010\/08\/11\/nist-piles-it-higher-and-deeper-structural-engineer-anders-bjorkman-refutes-dr-zdenek-bazant\/
\n———-
\n9\/11 Physics: “You Can’t Use Common Sense”
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M
\n———-
\n“The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis”
\nby Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. Take a look!
\nhttp:\/\/journalof911studies.com\/volume\/2008\/TheMissingJolt4.pdf
\n———-
\n9\/11 Experiments: The Arbitrator of Competing Hypotheses
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s&
\n——–
\nDenying The Obvious – NIST, Ba\u017eant and the 9\/11 Debunkers
\nwww.youtube.com\/watch?v=luGkdBs95kY
\n———
\nAndres Bjorkman<\/p>\n

NIST piles it higher and deeper: structural engineer Anders Bj\u00f6rkman refutes Dr. Zdenek Bazant<\/p>\n

NIST piles it higher and deeper: structural engineer Anders Bj\u00f6rkman refutes Dr. Zdenek Bazant<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n