• 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.
bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

And then read the actual transcripts here.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Yeah, you're lying again bill. I SHOWED YOU A PERFECT EXAMPLE, I even included a link to the ORIGINAL transcript, and even HILITED it!

Why can't you jus ADMIT that you were WRONG bill?
 
fess said:
Because he needs to keep his post count up. In a year and a half, he has an average of 10 posts per day… most of them BS.
Click to expand...

Ah here you are Fess. You are a hard man to track down. Me and the Readers have been trying to get an answer from you to the following question. Now dontcha go galloping off this time y'hear ?

'' Fess I will provide you with a moving picture of WTC7. Do those corners all drop at the same time ? . If not can you tell me and the Readers the order of collapse ? ''

animated gif.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7.gif

I only ask Fess because NIST insist that WTC7 is an example of a progressive collapse. That means one column and then the next and the next and so on ending up in the progressive collapse that NIST have staked heir reputation on.

Respondants are requested to give serious answers and not the usual childishness.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
NIST have staked heir reputation on.

Respondants are requested to give serious answers and not the usual childishness.
Click to expand...

Lets see if I understand you? Hundreds of qualified, and well respected scientists. You with no knowledge of engineering, or physics. Concern for whose reputation? The only thing childish here, is your lack of an argument.
 
bill smith said:
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. ''
Click to expand...

I think it is spltting hairs over something that is clear from the content that follows the statement.

All discussion following the statement indicates they were referring to the "pancake theory" in the context of collapse initiation.

TAM:)
 
bill smith said:
Ah here you are Fess. You are a hard man to track down. Me and the Readers have been trying to get an answer from you to the following question. Now dontcha go galloping off this time y'hear ?

'' Fess I will provide you with a moving picture of WTC7. Do those corners all drop at the same time ? . If not can you tell me and the Readers the order of collapse ? ''

animated gif.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7.gif

I only ask Fess because NIST insist that WTC7 is an example of a progressive collapse. That means one column and then the next and the next and so on ending up in the progressive collapse that NIST have staked heir reputation on.

Respondants are requested to give serious answers and not the usual childishness.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on taking shoddy video of the collapse to analyze? NIST illustrated in their paper what they saw in the videos that they used.


And no, that is not quite the definition of a progressive collapse.
 
bill smith said:
Ah here you are Fess. You are a hard man to track down. Me and the Readers have been trying to get an answer from you to the following question. Now dontcha go galloping off this time y'hear ?
Click to expand...
I’m not hard to find at all. The only thing that statement proves is to show your lack of effort, but we knew that already.
'' Fess I will provide you with a moving picture of WTC7. Do those corners all drop at the same time ? . If not can you tell me and the Readers the order of collapse ? ''

animated gif.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7.gif
Click to expand...
How many more years are we going to be subjected to that crappy GIF that “truthers” use to prove whatever it is they are trying to prove at the moment?

And no, all four corners do not drop at the same time. The collapse initiates on the south side of the building, and as it falls, it leans to the south, as can be seen in several videos, including the one you posted earlier.

I only ask Fess because NIST insist that WTC7 is an example of a progressive collapse. That means one column and then the next and the next and so on ending up in the progressive collapse that NIST have staked heir reputation on.
Click to expand...
Having been a firefighter for many years, I am not a big fan of the NIST. However, in this case I tend to believe that the building did suffer from a progressive collapse,in that; one or more internal columns failed and therefore initiated the collapse. If you have a better explanation, put it forth.
 
Last edited:
fess said:
I’m not hard to find at all. The only thing that statement proves is to show your lack of effort, but we knew that already.

How many more years are we going to be subjected to that crappy GIF that “truthers” use to prove whatever it is they are trying to prove at the moment?

And no, all four corners do not drop at the same time. The collapse initiates on the south side of the building, and as it falls, it leans to the south, as can be seen in several videos, including the one you posted earlier.

Having been a firefighter for many years, I am not a big fan of the NIST. However, in this case I tend to believe that the building did suffer from a progressive collapse,in that; one or more internal columns failed and therefore initiated the collapse. If you have a better explanation, put it forth.
Click to expand...

So you think that the order of collapse began on the South Side which went down dragging the rest with it more or less simultaneously ? Correct me if I'm wrong please.

I'm sure that triforcharity would kill to know what you mean by the part I have bolded.

My explanation is controlled demolition.

I thank you for your candid answer.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
I think it is spltting hairs over something that is clear from the content that follows the statement.

All discussion following the statement indicates they were referring to the "pancake theory" in the context of collapse initiation.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Don't you understand how crazy it would be for NIST to be rejecting the notion of pancaking floors collapsing BEFORE the general callapse ? Pancaking floors are collapse.


As was said in a previous post..


'' 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:
bill smith said:
Don't you understand how crazy it would be for NIST to be rejecting the notion of pancaking floors collapsing BEFORE the general callapse ? Pancaking floors are collapse.
Click to expand...
No, bill, it would not be crazy, because collapse of a single floor (a.k.a. pancaking of that floor) is a possible cause of general collapse. Indeed there were partial collapses of floors in the WTC. Read again and this time try to actually understand the words:

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.
​
(Yet again, that quote is from http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm, just in case someone missed it.)

Hilited the key words for you. What is crazy instead, however, is to claim that...

bill smith said:
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).
Click to expand...
merely based on NIST's use of ellipsisWP on the word "initiation" after "collapse" because it was (for the normal reader) assumed by the context.

ETA: Not to mention David Lim's sentence that "You could almost feel the sound of the floors pancaking on top of each other as they were collapsing" [ref]. What kind of "explosions" could possibly be "almost felt" from within the building?
 
Last edited:
pgimeno said:
No, bill, it would not be crazy, because collapse of a single floor (a.k.a. pancaking of that floor) is a possible cause of general collapse. Indeed there were partial collapses of floors in the WTC. Read again and this time try to actually understand the words:

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.
​
(Yet again, that quote is from http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm, just in case someone missed it.)

Hilited the key words for you. What is crazy instead, however, is to claim that...


merely based on NIST's use of ellipsisWP on the word "initiation" because it was (for the normal reader) assumed by the context.

ETA: Not to mention David Lim's sentence that "You could almost feel the sound of the floors pancaking on top of each other as they were collapsing" [ref]. What kind of «explosions» could possibly be «almost heard» from within the building?
Click to expand...

Also reported by at least one fireman quoted by name in Report From Ground Zero.
 
pgimeno said:
No, bill, it would not be crazy, because collapse of a single floor (a.k.a. pancaking of that floor) is a possible cause of general collapse. Indeed there were partial collapses of floors in the WTC. Read again and this time try to actually understand the words:

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.
​
(Yet again, that quote is from http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm, just in case someone missed it.)

Hilited the key words for you. What is crazy instead, however, is to claim that...


merely based on NIST's use of ellipsisWP on the word "initiation" after "collapse" because it was (for the normal reader) assumed by the context.

ETA: Not to mention David Lim's sentence that "You could almost feel the sound of the floors pancaking on top of each other as they were collapsing" [ref]. What kind of "explosions" could possibly be "almost felt" from within the building?
Click to expand...

Well if you really think so then I guess you better go with that. I will stick with my interpretation and use it where neccessary.

The Readers can be the final arbiter.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Don't you understand how crazy it would be for NIST to be rejecting the notion of pancaking floors collapsing BEFORE the general callapse ? Pancaking floors are collapse.


As was said in a previous post..


'' 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. ''
Click to expand...

Not crazy at all. WHat they were saying is that with respect to the floors within the IMPACT ZONE, the data does not support a "pancake Theory" of collapse of those floors. Why else do they go on to talk about heat induced buckling of the trusses etc.? If they were referring to the entire collapse, then we know, an idiot knows, that momentum and "pancaking" occurred as the towers came down. IT just wasn't involved in the initiation of the collapse in the impact zone.

Thats what I get from their answer.

TAM:)
 
bill smith said:
Well if you really think so then I guess you better go with that. I will stick with my interpretation and use it where neccessary.

The Readers can be the final arbiter.
Click to expand...

We already are:

Grizzly Bear said:
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
Click to expand...

beachnut said:
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.
Click to expand...

Orphia Nay said:
The sentence prior to the quote from NIST you quoted:



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

triforcharity said:
And then read the actual transcripts here.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Yeah, you're lying again bill. I SHOWED YOU A PERFECT EXAMPLE, I even included a link to the ORIGINAL transcript, and even HILITED it!

Why can't you jus ADMIT that you were WRONG bill?
Click to expand...

fess said:
Because he needs to keep his post count up. In a year and a half, he has an average of 10 posts per day… most of them BS.
Click to expand...

Dog Town said:
Lets see if I understand you? Hundreds of qualified, and well respected scientists. You with no knowledge of engineering, or physics. Concern for whose reputation? The only thing childish here, is your lack of an argument.
Click to expand...

pgimeno said:
No, bill, it would not be crazy, because collapse of a single floor (a.k.a. pancaking of that floor) is a possible cause of general collapse. Indeed there were partial collapses of floors in the WTC. Read again and this time try to actually understand the words:

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.
​
(Yet again, that quote is from http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm, just in case someone missed it.)

Hilited the key words for you. What is crazy instead, however, is to claim that...


merely based on NIST's use of ellipsisWP on the word "initiation" after "collapse" because it was (for the normal reader) assumed by the context.

ETA: Not to mention David Lim's sentence that "You could almost feel the sound of the floors pancaking on top of each other as they were collapsing" [ref]. What kind of "explosions" could possibly be "almost felt" from within the building?
Click to expand...

T.A.M. said:
Not crazy at all. WHat they were saying is that with respect to the floors within the IMPACT ZONE, the data does not support a "pancake Theory" of collapse of those floors. Why else do they go on to talk about heat induced buckling of the trusses etc.? If they were referring to the entire collapse, then we know, an idiot knows, that momentum and "pancaking" occurred as the towers came down. IT just wasn't involved in the initiation of the collapse in the impact zone.

Thats what I get from their answer.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

NIST DENIED PANCAKING AS CAUSE OF COLLAPSE INITIATION: 8.
NIST DENIED PANCAKING DURING COLLAPSE PROGRESSION: 1 (you).

I'd say it's a rout.

But I'd bet that when quoting NIST in future, you will no doubt highlight ONLY the part where they say "collapse" and NOT the part where later they say "collapse initiation", just to mislead the public, and deliberately omit quotes such as this one:

Exterior panels from WTC 1 were analyzed to determine if different failure mechanisms were observed for those panels above the impact region and those located below. There were 63 observations from the 12 panels at or below the 95th floor and 74 from the remaining 11 panels above the 95th floor. Figure 3-51 spatially displays this information for WTC 1 near the impact region of the north face. Both pictorially and statistically, below the impact zone, the majority of floor truss connectors were observed to be either bent down or completely missing. Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking." Again, the data for Type B and Type D floor truss connectors was too limited to define any sort of pattern.
​
(NCSTAR 1-3C Damage and Failure Modes, p.117, 167 in PDF)

Feel free to go ahead: misleading the public is a truther's specialty and nobody would expect them to seek for other than their truth, right?
 
pgimeno said:
We already are:

















NIST DENIED PANCAKING AS CAUSE OF COLLAPSE INITIATION: 8.
NIST DENIED PANCAKING DURING COLLAPSE PROGRESSION: 1 (you).

I'd say it's a rout.

But I'd bet that when quoting NIST in future, you will no doubt highlight ONLY the part where they say "collapse" and NOT the part where later they say "collapse initiation", just to mislead the public, and deliberately omit quotes such as this one:

Exterior panels from WTC 1 were analyzed to determine if different failure mechanisms were observed for those panels above the impact region and those located below. There were 63 observations from the 12 panels at or below the 95th floor and 74 from the remaining 11 panels above the 95th floor. Figure 3-51 spatially displays this information for WTC 1 near the impact region of the north face. Both pictorially and statistically, below the impact zone, the majority of floor truss connectors were observed to be either bent down or completely missing. Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking." Again, the data for Type B and Type D floor truss connectors was too limited to define any sort of pattern.
​
(NCSTAR 1-3C Damage and Failure Modes, p.117, 167 in PDF)

Feel free to go ahead: misleading the public is a truther's specialty and nobody would expect them to seek for other than their truth, right?
Click to expand...



NIST's Pronouncement to the Nation in their FAQ:

'' 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 ''

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

Don't you understand how crazy it would be for NIST to be rejecting the notion of pancaking floors collapsing BEFORE the general callapse ? Pancaking floors are collapse.


As was said in a previous post..


'' 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. ''

Thank you..
 
Last edited:
Saying something over and over again makes it true, even if it's demonstrably wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom