• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
... NO pancaking of floors. ZERO pancaking according to NIST ...
Please source your failed opinions. Source, reference, etc.

Multiple floors together.
JonesLie.jpg


You spread lies based on ignorance; 8 years of failure and anti-intellectual delusions based on lies and hearsay.

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.
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 make up moronic lies and fail to research what happen and prefer to spew lies. Pancaking floors did not cause the collapse, but floors collapsed into each other for some reason related to gravity and physics. Darn!, you don't do physics and gravity.

Why not post what NIST said instead of making up lies and posting stupid statements? How many more years of lies from you? Reading is fundamental.
 
Where did NIST say there was No pancaking of floors?

My understanding was they concluded that PANCAKING was not a cause of collapse INITIATION. I hadn't thought they had said anything more on pancaking beyond that.

Anyone? Reference/source?

TAM:)

'' 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 ''
 
It's near impossible to get the message to people who are incapable of:

  • Doing background research to ensure the quotes are completely in context
  • Who cannot discern between theories dealing with collapse initiation, and collapse progression

It's a lack of skepticism, ironically that the truth movement suffers from. While they spend their time doubting what they refer to as the "official narrative" they have absolutely zero skepticism of the material they source because the government lies no matter what the accuracy of the claim itself is.

Also, I've come under the impression that posting their own famed quotes in context makes them think that the complete excerpts themselves are somehow quote mines or fakery because it doesn't agree with their preconcieved conclusions

Grizzley, It is now plain to everybody that you do not have me on ignore whatever you may say. So what about trying to answer the attached post that I sent you the other day ?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6131212&postcount=2692

And just to keep the Readers interested....

I will provide you with a picture of WTC7. Do those corners all drop at the same time ? . If not can you tell the Readers and myself the order of collapse ? Thank you
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7.gif
 
'' 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 ''
That article does not say there was " No pancaking of floors". You really have to start reading for comprehension.
 
'' 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 just proved you were wrong! Do you read what you quote?

Make your CD ideas nonsense; you failed to read and understand you posted a source which debunks you! LOL Plagiarism, it is what 911 truth does.
 
I'm trying to locate a video of the church service Bush attended shortly after 9/11 (where after Bush junior held his speech, Bush senior grabbed junior by the hand to show his support). Particular I'm looking for the name of the song the choir was singing. Thanks!
 
'' 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 has also stated that they investigated/analyzed nothing further then collapse initiation, so when they refer to the "pancake" theory of collapse, they are referring to collapse INITIATION Bill. You know this, so why are you misrepresenting?

Once again, the impact floors failed due to the bowing of the trusses, as a result of the removal of fireproofing, and subsequent unchecked heat applied to them. HOWEVER, they are NOT making comment as to what happened to the floors that collapsed (all the way down to the bottom) once INITIATION took hold.

ARE WE CLEAR?

TAM:)
 
NIST has also stated that they investigated/analyzed nothing further then collapse initiation, so when they refer to the "pancake" theory of collapse, they are referring to collapse INITIATION Bill. You know this, so why are you misrepresenting?

Once again, the impact floors failed due to the bowing of the trusses, as a result of the removal of fireproofing, and subsequent unchecked heat applied to them. HOWEVER, they are NOT making comment as to what happened to the floors that collapsed (all the way down to the bottom) once INITIATION took hold.

ARE WE CLEAR?

TAM:)

Not nohow TAM

Readers should read the NIST statement on pancaking floors just above. Really read it and then measure it against what TAM is saying. It's only short.

Note that NIST say the following...

' NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse '

Not 'initiation of collapse ' but COLLAPSE
 
Last edited:
Not nohow TAM

Readers should read the NIST statement on pancaking floors just above. Really read it and then measure it against what TAM is saying. It's only short.

Note that NIST say the following...

' NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse '

Not 'initiation of collapse ' but COLLAPSE
Why do you think they put "pancake theory" in quotes? If you can figure that out you'd discover the truth about what NIST meant.
 
Not nohow TAM

Readers should read the NIST statement on pancaking floors just above. Really read it and then measure it against what TAM is saying. It's only short.

Note that NIST say the following...

' NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse '

Not 'initiation of collapse ' but COLLAPSE

Well...what they have said is that their data does not support the "pancake theory".

Now, given they did not study/analyze beyond the initiation, they would have no data to support or refute the theory if it were referring to the collapse itself, now would they Bill? Hmmmm?

Are you purposely being obtuse? I know you believe in converting people to trutherism, regardless of the lies and deceit it requires, but come on...you at least have to try to make sense.

TAM:)
 
Not nohow TAM

Readers should read the NIST statement on pancaking floors just above. Really read it and then measure it against what TAM is saying. It's only short.

Note that NIST say the following...

' NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse '

Not 'initiation of collapse ' but COLLAPSE

The sentence prior to the quote from NIST you quoted:

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

It's quite clear that they are talking about collapse initiation.
 
Well they may have dropped it because NIST themselves had aleady said that there had been NO pancaking of floors. ZERO pancaking according to NIST therefore he had to have heard the true demolition explosions he and his 118 colleages so clearly describe in post #2694 just above.( In the hyperlinks).

Why do you lie so much liar? NIST has NEVER said that the floors did not pancake. It SPECIFICALLY said that pancaking was not the collapse INIATION.

118 colleages? Horse****. 118 quote mined and taken out of context bull****? Yes.

Now, why would the person whom QUOTED this guy leave out the sentence which EXPLAINS that he does not believe it was an ACTUAL controlled demolition?

WTF is wrong with some people.......
 
'' 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 ''

Self debunking highlited. This is talking about the COLLAPSE INIATION. CONTEXT FFS!!!
 
The sentence prior to the quote from NIST you quoted:



It's quite clear that they are talking about collapse initiation.

I recently showed a guy a picture of the pentagon hole that showed it to be bigger than "18 feet." He came right back at me and told me it was 18 ft across no matter what, and that somehow the full picture then proved he was right. I sense a similar vibe coming from bs... Just sayin' :|
 
Well...what they have said is that their data does not support the "pancake theory".

Now, given they did not study/analyze beyond the initiation, they would have no data to support or refute the theory if it were referring to the collapse itself, now would they Bill? Hmmmm?

Are you purposely being obtuse? I know you believe in converting people to trutherism, regardless of the lies and deceit it requires, but come on...you at least have to try to make sense.

TAM:)

Are you sure that you are not trying to mislead the Readers here TAM ? Are you not being deceitful or even lying ? Obtuse maybe ?

As the concerned cirizens reading along can clearly see there are good reasons why I promote the Truth in the face of the outrageous and transparent OCT propaganda of members of the jref 9/11 subforum.

For instance you seem to have droppd two words out of your quote from NIST in the post I am replying to.

You said in black and white that NIST said:-

'...that their data does not support the "pancake theory".

But you - most likely deliberately - left out the two critical words that give the statement meaning

' NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse,

I can't imagine what poor triforcharity must be thinking at this moment . lol
 
Last edited:
Are you sure that you are not trying to mislead the Readers here TAM ? Are you not being deceitful or even lying ? Obtuse maybe ?

As the concerned cirizens reading along can clearly see there are good reasons why I promote the Truth in the face of the outrageous and transparent OCT propaganda of members of the jref 9/11 subforum.

For instance you seem to have droppd two words out of your quote from NIST in the post I am replying to.

You said in black and white that NIST said:-

'...that their data does not support the "pancake theory".

But you - most likely deliberately - left out the two critical words that give the statement meaning

' NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse,

I can't imagine what poor triforcharity must be thinking at this moment . lol

They say their data does not support the "pancake theory" of collapse. Well given they did not analyze or assess beyond initiation, it makes sense, because they would have not data on the collapse, beyond initiation, to support ANY theory OF COLLAPSE.

So NIST is correct. IS that better Bill? That was the point I was trying to make all along.

Here it is, for the 3-4 lurkers who still are in doubt...

NIST DID NOT ANALYZE OR ASSESS THE COLLAPSE BEYOND THE POINT OF INITIATION, THEREFORE, THEY HAVE NO DATA TO SUPPORT OR REFUTE ANY THEORY REGARDING COLLAPSE BEYOND INITIATION!!!!!

You have turned truther misleading into an art form Bill.

TAM
 
They say their data does not support the "pancake theory" of collapse. Well given they did not analyze or assess beyond initiation, it makes sense, because they would have not data on the collapse, beyond initiation, to support ANY theory OF COLLAPSE.

So NIST is correct. IS that better Bill? That was the point I was trying to make all along.

Here it is, for the 3-4 lurkers who still are in doubt...

NIST DID NOT ANALYZE OR ASSESS THE COLLAPSE BEYOND THE POINT OF INITIATION, THEREFORE, THEY HAVE NO DATA TO SUPPORT OR REFUTE ANY THEORY REGARDING COLLAPSE BEYOND INITIATION!!!!!

You have turned truther misleading into an art form Bill.

TAM

So would I be right in saying that what NIST really meant was in fact not what it actually appeared to be...to wit:-

' NIST's data does not support the "pancake theory" of collapse.''

But actually:-

'' NIST's data does not support the "pancake theory" of pre-collapse. ''
 
Last edited:
Why do you lie so much liar? NIST has NEVER said that the floors did not pancake. It SPECIFICALLY said that pancaking was not the collapse INIATION.

118 colleages? Horse****. 118 quote mined and taken out of context bull****? Yes.

Now, why would the person whom QUOTED this guy leave out the sentence which EXPLAINS that he does not believe it was an ACTUAL controlled demolition?

WTF is wrong with some people.......

Readers can check out tri's allegations of quote mining, lying etc. by reading hyperlink 1 and watching the video in hyperlink 2 in the attached.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6132560&postcount=2694 hyperlink.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom