Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

"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
 
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, August 30 2006


eta: shakes fist at Russell and his faster fingers...
 
Usual Suspect said:
Well he is NYPD so I'm sure he'd no an explosion better than say..... a tour guide.
Click to expand...
How do you know what explosions he or I have been around. You don't, therefore your belief is unfounded.

The important question is, do you take his opinion over all the people whose job it was to assess the condition of the building, and whose training and experience prepared them to do that job? You know, like Chief Nigro:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt. [Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

In another interview, Chief Nigro says,

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the col-lapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did col-lapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely. http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y
Click to expand...

Do you have reason to believe the opinion of the embittered Bartner, who suffers from PTSD and who, AFAIK has only recently been making these claims, over the expertise of the 32-year FDNY veteran Nigro, whose job it was to make the decisions on 9/11?

If so, why?
 
Question:

to the columns and pull the columns inwards
Click to expand...

How do you pull centralized columns inwards?

Did the fires melt the 47 core columns?

How did the core come straight down?
 
Last edited:
Update - I have sent the following email to the makers of 911 mysteries.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Some people have been suggesting that the video excerpt of a Fox interview in the streets on 911 is a fake.

This is the clip I mean:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7807592959569136609&q=fake+witness

They are claiming the audio is out of sync and dubbed over.

Could you give me any details on this clip, how you obtained it? Is there an in sync version anywhere?

Many thanks in advance for your help.

Rachel
Click to expand...
 
Russell Pickering said:
Question:

How do you pull centralized columns inwards?

Did the fires melt the 47 core cuolums?

How did the core come straight down?
Click to expand...
Russell, this is just embarrassing.

The outer columns were pulled inwards.
The fires didn't melt any columns
The core didn't have to come straight down.

You really need to stop reading CT sources, and get familiar with the NIST report.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Question:



How do you pull centralized columns inwards?

Did the fires melt the 47 core cuolums?

How did the core come straight down?
Click to expand...
Did you even read the article you posted? The trusses sagged from the heat (note I didn't say melted), and this pulled the columns inward. Once the columns stray very far from vertical, their load carrying capacity is greatly reduced - think of a car jack tipping over.
 
Gravy said:
Russell, this is just embarrassing.

The outer columns were pulled inwards.
The fires didn't melt any columns
The core didn't have to come straight down.

You really need to stop reading CT sources, and get familiar with the NIST report.
Click to expand...

NIST doesn't study anything after the start of the collapse.
 
Gravy said:
Do you have reason to believe the opinion of the embittered Bartner, who suffers from PTSD and who, AFAIK has only recently been making these claims, over the expertise of the 32-year FDNY veteran Nigro, whose job it was to make the decisions on 9/11?

If so, why?
Click to expand...

I am glad to know that questioning NYPD and FDNY personnel is now fair game. It will help in the future.
 
You're right, I forgot to include the qualifier to show only posts from Wildcat for the second search, let the records show there's only 6 other ones, not 300.
 
Gravy said:
Russell, this is just embarrassing.

The outer columns were pulled inwards.
The fires didn't melt any columns
The core didn't have to come straight down.

You really need to stop reading CT sources, and get familiar with the NIST report.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I am never embarrassed by misreading something and learning from it.

But quoting one part of a video that supports your belief while ignoring the part that didn't................
 
Dazed said:
You're right, I forgot to include the qualifier to show only posts from Wildcat for the second search, let the records show there's only 6 other ones, not 300.
Click to expand...
And how many after Aug. 30?
 
I don't care to check, I'm guessing none? Does it matter? If you can use the term I can, we both know what it refers to.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Thank you.

I am never embarrassed by misreading something and learning from it.

But quoting one part of a video that supports your belief while ignoring the part that didn't................
Click to expand...
No, you would never take something out of context. Not Russell!
 
Gravy said:
Was the question unfair, Russell? If so, why? If not, care to answer it?
Click to expand...

It was a very fair question.

Just as fair as questioning Silverstein's statement in my opinion.

I question everything.

I am just glad to know I won't be treated in a hostile fashion in the future for doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom