because I saw he posted the part below:
"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." NIST FAQ #2
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Let me point out how unbelievably fruity the NIST is. They are comparing the initiation of the collapse to the actual collapse itself. They clearly state that this wasn't a pancake collapse... but INSTEAD, it was some sort of weird non-progressive collapse initiation i.e. bowing outer columns. Oh, I get it... a collapse didn't even occur... it was only a collapse initiation.
So, what is this new non-progressive collapse initiation called, anyway? Don't you see how NIST was talking about the actual collapse in the first paragraph... but in the 2nd paragraph, they switched from the collapse to the initiation of the collapse.
"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom ... the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward." NIST FAQ #2
Classic Doublespeak. They say that the floors did NOT fail progressively, and then they say video evidence showed unambiguously that the collapse of floors progressed from the top to the bottom.
I have asked this of the JEFers before... and I will ask it again, as this is one of the times they turned into a bunch of chuckleheads with cat pics. NIST says that the pancake theory is not possible on these types of structures, and then they proclaim that the floors did NOT fail progressively like a pancake collapse, but instead the outer columns bowed inward and WHAT? How did the floors collapse after the outer columns failed? If not progressively like a pancake collapse, than HOW? Well, the NIST has that covered as well... here's what they say:
"As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it--much like the action of a piston--forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially ... the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."
So, I want a JEFer to tell me... how the collapse of the Twin Towers differentiated from a pancake collapse. That is the 3.5 billion dollar question...
"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." NIST FAQ #2
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Let me point out how unbelievably fruity the NIST is. They are comparing the initiation of the collapse to the actual collapse itself. They clearly state that this wasn't a pancake collapse... but INSTEAD, it was some sort of weird non-progressive collapse initiation i.e. bowing outer columns. Oh, I get it... a collapse didn't even occur... it was only a collapse initiation.
So, what is this new non-progressive collapse initiation called, anyway? Don't you see how NIST was talking about the actual collapse in the first paragraph... but in the 2nd paragraph, they switched from the collapse to the initiation of the collapse.
"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom ... the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward." NIST FAQ #2
Classic Doublespeak. They say that the floors did NOT fail progressively, and then they say video evidence showed unambiguously that the collapse of floors progressed from the top to the bottom.
I have asked this of the JEFers before... and I will ask it again, as this is one of the times they turned into a bunch of chuckleheads with cat pics. NIST says that the pancake theory is not possible on these types of structures, and then they proclaim that the floors did NOT fail progressively like a pancake collapse, but instead the outer columns bowed inward and WHAT? How did the floors collapse after the outer columns failed? If not progressively like a pancake collapse, than HOW? Well, the NIST has that covered as well... here's what they say:
"As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it--much like the action of a piston--forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially ... the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."
So, I want a JEFer to tell me... how the collapse of the Twin Towers differentiated from a pancake collapse. That is the 3.5 billion dollar question...
