IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Pancake Theory

Chris Kramer
post Apr 20 2009, 11:12 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 1
Joined: 25-May 08
Member No.: 3,430



Just a thought as when I have had my Meetup groups the topic of the Pancake Theory comes up, not that anyone showing up believes this, but I was looking for a better response for those that ask why not, with no real information from us to help them.

I have come to this - the problem is the structures and all other ingredients in the buildings were turned to flour rolleyes.gif not pancakes.

Just a thought.

Thanks for your time today.
Chris
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 20 2009, 11:56 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



lunk pancake theory:

1 cup of flour,
add some baking powder, enough to make the final mixture bubble,
a little sugar so it browns nicely,
some salt so it doesn't burn (not too much)
a little cooking oil, so they don't stick to the pan,
1 egg to hold it all together,
and add some liquid, milk and/or water, to bring the mixture to the
right consistency to make perfect pancakes, not to thick or thin.
stir well.

the pan should be preheated,
and the pancake is flipped,
when the bubbles start to set.

With this pancake theory,
you will be left with a big stack of (possibly) delicious, pancakes.

...unlike the other pancake theory,
where there are no stacks of anything pancaked.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
billsmith
post Apr 20 2009, 12:31 PM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 12
Joined: 27-March 09
Member No.: 4,218



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 20 2009, 05:56 PM) *
lunk pancake theory:

1 cup of flour,
add some baking powder, enough to make the final mixture bubble,
a little sugar so it browns nicely,
some salt so it doesn't burn (not too much)
a little cooking oil, so they don't stick to the pan,
1 egg to hold it all together,
and add some liquid, milk and/or water, to bring the mixture to the
right consistency to make perfect pancakes, not to thick or thin.
stir well.

the pan should be preheated,
and the pancake is flipped,
when the bubbles start to set.

With this pancake theory,
you will be left with a big stack of (possibly) delicious, pancakes.

...unlike the other pancake theory,
where there are no stacks of anything pancaked.


lol.

More food related..

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% © of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90% (A).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 20 2009, 01:04 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,598
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



NIST has abandoned the "Pancake Theory" as they are only able to barely hypothesize (read: guess) the cause for collapse initiation. They offer no explanation for global collapse, nor have they tested for any accelerants/explosive materials.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Apr 20 2009, 02:43 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



QUOTE (Chris Kramer @ Apr 18 2009, 01:12 PM) *
Just a thought as when I have had my Meetup groups the topic of the Pancake Theory comes up, not that anyone showing up believes this, but I was looking for a better response for those that ask why not, with no real information from us to help them.

I have come to this - the problem is the structures and all other ingredients in the buildings were turned to flour rolleyes.gif not pancakes.

Just a thought.

Thanks for your time today.
Chris


One, tell them NIST, the creators of the fantasy, do not believe in the pancake theory. Then explain they never modeled the global collapse in the first place. Official excuse: "too chaotic for computer models".

Second, explain the reasoning this way, which has now become my favorite way to introduce the subject to both laymen and expert:

1. Build or imagine a structure composed of all of the same material. WTC towers, lemons,pizza boxes, crackers, it doesn't
matter.

2. Take 1/10th of the top part of the structure, lift it just off the top of the remaining part, and drop it on the remaining
9/10ths of the structure. In order for the official collapse excuse to be valid, the 1/10th will crush down the remaining
9/10ths at nearly free fall speed/time every time. With regards to the towers, there was of course support between the
top part and the bottom part minus impact damage. And the bottom part of the towers actually got stronger on the way
down. But the elementary exercise will explain the gist of the arguement.

2a. You can now explain to your group why NIST didn't model the global collapse, as their excuse was the event was "too
chaotic to model" via computer. I might add also that it is impossible to model in reality as well.

3. Then explain to the people the impossibility of such a notion and from there introduce the concept of support removal via
explosives, thermite/thermate, external energy source, etc in order to get to a global collapse.

From there, you can get into the theorizing....how did they get into the complext to wire it up? Check security. What explains the events in the basements prior to collapse? Support removal to ensure global collapse, survivors reminded of WTC 93 truck bomb, etc. Check early hypothesis of FBI on 9/11: truck bomb. Firefighter's descriptions of explosions going off, check PA transcripts. You may arrive at someone telling you, "yeah well maybe the terrorists did gain access to the guts of the towers....". Fair enough. Then ask why did NIST, FEMA, BATF, etc. etc. NOT test for explosive residues in the debris or why they didn't even consider a controlled demolition hypothesis. Then you can explain the fallacy of ommission with regards to 9/11, etc.

Good luck!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Apr 22 2009, 09:54 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



There is an early NIST report that states the floors would not collapse or "pancake." Section 6.13 of NIST NCSTAR1 (Draft):

QUOTE
"6.13 MEASUREMENT OF THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF THE FLOOR SYSTEM
...
The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11."


CAUTION: 16MB PDF
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf

Of course after NIST admits the FEMA "pancake collapse" error, BBC dredges it back up (as the "debunkaz" have been doing recently):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm

It's a little telling when the "debunkaz" are less aware of the "official" Conspiracy Theory than Alex Jones' website was 1.5 years ago:

QUOTE
BBC: Debunked "Pancake Theory" Caused Towers To Collapse Study directly contradicts NIST report conclusion, laws of physics

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/septe...cake_theory.htm

http://911review.org/Reports/Pancake-Theory_Collapse.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post May 12 2009, 12:00 PM
Post #7





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Swingdangler!

QUOTE
1. Build or imagine a structure composed of all of the same material. WTC towers, lemons,pizza boxes, crackers, it doesn'tmatter.

2. Take 1/10th of the top part of the structure, lift it just off the top of the remaining part, and drop it on the remaining 9/10ths of the structure. In order for the official collapse excuse to be valid, the 1/10th will crush down the remaining 9/10ths at nearly free fall speed/time every time. With regards to the towers, there was of course support between the top part and the bottom part minus impact damage. And the bottom part of the towers actually got stronger on the way down. But the elementary exercise will explain the gist of the arguement.


An excellent illustration. I've done it by stacking ten backgammon markers (one for each ten floors) and dropping the top one, two and three onto the stack remaining on the bottom. Usually I do the drop from about three inches above first. That result being observed, I point out that I should only drop it half the thickness of one marker to simulate at scale the simultaneous and symmetrical removal of five floors of support by fire.

Then to illustrate free fall speed I take an additional one, two or three and drop them next to the pile while repeating dropping the same number onto the pile. That way they see which one always hits the table first.

The usual response is that skyscrapers are different and I don't know anything about skyscrapers or engineering!

Then when I point out that the nature of fire makes simultaneous and symmetrical support of five floors impossible, they add that I am not a fire marshal. Unfortunately there's no easy way top demonstrate that l;arge fires, even with an initial accelerant, do not burn symmetrically.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: May 12 2009, 12:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post May 12 2009, 01:49 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Uhhh, the Pancake Theory was an early attempt to explain the collapse to ordinary people. Problem was, there were no "pancakes" left after the collapse - no identifiable floors, just a bunch of rubble & dust. Furthermore, the "theory" assumes floors detached from the core, but doesn't say how the core collapsed. Another "the dog ate my homework" story. I do like pancakes though, blueberry is my favorite.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
panthercat
post Mar 2 2010, 05:55 PM
Post #9





Group: Core Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 14-April 07
From: Pahoa, HI
Member No.: 952



Is the collapse of all three buildings still being credited to fire? If so what do they claim was the fuel? The aircraft didn't carry enough to do the whole job as originally claimed. Did they overload the building with waffles instead of pancakes, which may have affected the results? The only fuels in that building that were distributed throughout the building were probably people, particle board, paper and non synthetic clothing. I don't buy the fire theory, let alone their burned pancakes.

In an open air fire, it should get hot, but since the steel girders were all connected together to form a gigantic heat sink, ordinary fire melting that heavy a steel structure seems hideously unlikely. What's more unbelievable is the fires were set high in the buildings and they supposedly burned all the way to the ground. For fire to burn down slope, it requires strong down slope wind, which was not encountered by firefighters that day. Concrete doesn't pulverize in a fire, it just cracks from mechanical weathering over time, so all that pulverized concrete could not have been a result of fire.

I suppose if someone wants to pull the wool over the Sheeple's eyes, make certain a lot of people are killed in the process and they can be run off the emotional impact. I would like to know what those Mossad agents were doing across the Hudson River, dancing and singing as the towers collapsed. I'd put money on them having something to do with the collapse, although they'd never admit to it. If you ever read Victor Ostrovsky's books, By Way of Deception and The Other Side of Deception to see why I consider them a suspect in this debacle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th April 2014 - 04:18 AM