Loose Change - Part II

[Pardalis]

This is a conclusion where you may or may not end up, depending upon other factors. But no meaningful discussion can take place until that first step is agreed upon. So for now, until a unanimous agreement is made, I will only be discussing whether or not high-rise steel structures have ever pancaked. I will not respond to accusations about me calling firmen cowards for not running into buildings.

I think Hunstman gave you that answer, it did happen twice in New York in september 2001.

 

[Hellbound]

I think Hunstman gave you that answer, it did happen twice in New York in september 2001.

Actually, was WTC 7 steel-core? If so, that's three times.

 

[Pardalis]

Mutton, answer my question please. Why is this a challenge all of a sudden?

 

[chipmunk stew]

As of now, the only thing I'm discussing is buildings pancaking. The reason for that is the only way to come to any kind of consensus is by taking it a step at a time. I think Gravy agrees with me on that.

This where you start.

This is a conclusion where you may or may not end up, depending upon other factors. But no meaningful discussion can take place until that first step is agreed upon. So for now, until a unanimous agreement is made, I will only be discussing whether or not high-rise steel structures have ever pancaked. I will not respond to accusations about me calling firmen cowards for not running into buildings.

Buildings pancaking. (Falling symmetrically downward, in their footprints.)

Yes I consider that to be very different. You're conclusion that the volume of material is the culprit is pure speculation.

So, once again, (Maybe it should be a new thread?)

I'm contending that a high-rise steel structure has never collapsed "pancake-style."

That is my challenge. If any body is up for it, throw your submissions into the ring.

We all know that nothing similar enough to count for much had ever happened prior to 9/11. But precedence is not a requirement, Mr. Investigator. Only plausibility based on known immediate factors and known immediate evidence is required for a solid hypothesis. If subsequent investigation, experimentation, and analysis provides further supporting evidence and does not falsify the hypothesis, you can consider it a solid theory--despite whatever has happened in the past.

Let's compare:
Pancake theory? Yup, it fits the bill.
Controlled demolition theory? Uh-oh, it falls apart faster than a controlled demolition.

 

[azazal]

Snips away boring stuff

I guess the "structural engineers" amongst you who suggested this one failed to notice the totally different construction technique, the fact that they were temporary supports, and the fact that the building wasn't completed.

My challenge still stands, find any where in the world, any where in the history of buildings, an example of a steel framed tower that pancaked symmetrically.

You said find a steel framed tower that collapsed in a pancake fashion, in fact from your post number 355 of this thread "A high-rise steel structure whose height is several times its width and depth has NEVER pancaked."

Lets look at L'Ambiance Plaza Collapse shall we.

Hmm, construction:

Seven-inch thick posttensioned, concrete slabs and steel columns comprised its structural frame

Wow, steel framing, looks at Muttonhead's post, yeap matches his loose requirements.

Looking at the plans:

It consisted of two offset rectangular towers, 63 ft by 112 ft each

that's the size of a single floor, final project would be 16 stories high.

Checking the diagram listed, the floors that collapsed were at roughly at that height of the 6th floor's planed location. So again, the collapse was from some height, not 1 or 2 stories.

At the time of collapse, the building was a little more than halfway completed. In the west tower, the ninth, tenth, and eleventh floor slab package was parked in stage IV directly under the twelfth floor and roof package.

The supports holding the slabs gave way and started the pancake collapse.

So let's see shall we, concrete floor slab held up by supports that fail, which in turn causes the floor slab to fall. That slab smashed into the next one in the line, knocking it from its supports, and chain reacting on down the line. So how is this different from the WTC?? Support wedge fails vs. a support strut failing, sounds pretty close to me. But hey, you just keep moving those goal posts, K.

 

[kookbreaker]

I'm contending that a high-rise steel structure has never collapsed "pancake-style."

What is your point?

In the history of buildings, only a fraction of a fraction are what could be called 'high-rise'.

Of them, only a fraction would be considered 'steel structures' (a term you had best look at more carefully, BTW. Many, if not most high rise buildings use concrete cores).

Of them only a fraction of a fraction have ever been in danger of any sort (bombings, fire, earthquakes).

Of them, only a small portion received damage that could result in pancake collapse, which requires fire or other cricumstances to fail the building at a point other than its base. The count of how many outside the WTC attacks that reached this level of danger could be counted on one deformed hand.

Of them, most were damaged beyond repair or at least partially collapsed.

Of them, only the WTC buildings have collapsed completely.

Your complaint seems to be that we must find prior examples from a sample pool that is extremely small to begin with.

Structural Engineers, and many other types of Engineers understand completely how pancake collapse can occour. You are saying these experts, who design buildings that people work and live in, do not understand what they are talking about. We are simply supposed to take your word for it.

 

[kookbreaker]

Yes I consider that to be very different. You're conclusion that the volume of material is the culprit is pure speculation.

Why do you think that is speculation? Are you suggesting that mass has nothing to do with the completeness of the collapse? Do you consider Newton to be another expert that you can mistrust?

 

[Mutton-Head]

Yes, thank you Huntsman, you did answer the question exactly 100% correct. Thank you.

The “challenge” comment was just a playful metaphor. But I'm beginning to get the feeling that we speak different languages. I think this will only serve to further exacerbate all of us. So, since Huntsman and I just reached probably the only agreement that we ever will, I will bid adieu.

Good-bye from the Mutton-Head

 

[kookbreaker]

Yes, thank you Huntsman, you did answer the question exactly 100% correct. Thank you.

The “challenge” comment was just a playful metaphor. But I'm beginning to get the feeling that we speak different languages. I think this will only serve to further exacerbate all of us. So, since Huntsman and I just reached probably the only agreement that we ever will, I will bid adieu.

Good-bye from the Mutton-Head

So you were playing games. What a surprise.

 

[Pardalis]

Yes, thank you Huntsman, you did answer the question exactly 100% correct. Thank you.

The “challenge” comment was just a playful metaphor. But I'm beginning to get the feeling that we speak different languages. I think this will only serve to further exacerbate all of us. So, since Huntsman and I just reached probably the only agreement that we ever will, I will bid adieu.

Good-bye from the Mutton-Head

Might I ask what is exactly the reason of your departure? We all seemed to be having an intelligent discussion didn't we? What went wrong?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

As of now, the only thing I'm discussing is buildings pancaking. The reason for that is the only way to come to any kind of consensus is by taking it a step at a time. I think Gravy agrees with me on that.

This where you start.

This is a conclusion where you may or may not end up, depending upon other factors. But no meaningful discussion can take place until that first step is agreed upon. So for now, until a unanimous agreement is made, I will only be discussing whether or not high-rise steel structures have ever pancaked. I will not respond to accusations about me calling firmen cowards for not running into buildings.

Buildings pancaking. (Falling symmetrically downward, in their footprints.)



Yes I consider that to be very different. You're conclusion that the volume of material is the culprit is pure speculation.

So, once again, (Maybe it should be a new thread?)

I'm contending that a high-rise steel structure has never collapsed "pancake-style."

That is my challenge. If any body is up for it, throw your submissions into the ring.

You are asking for irrelevent evidence. If you truly want to start by dealing with "pancaking" it has to be thus:
1) Define what a pancake collapse of a skyscraper/highrise/etc is.
2) a) Does the collapse of the WTC1 building fit the definition from step 1?
b) Does the collapse of the WTC2 building fit the definition from step 1?
3) If the collapse fits the definition of a pancake collapse from step1 con't to step four, else start a different proof
4) Form a testable hypothesis as to what structural failure would cause a building of that construction to collapse
5) a) Are there any other building collapses that fit the definition in step 1?
b) If so, is their construction similar enough to that of the WTC (1/2) building in question to be relevent?
6) One you have a working theory on the structural failure that caused the collapse of the WTC building in question, form a testable hypothesis as to the cause of the structural failure
7) If you answered step 5b as yes then
a) Is the cause of the structural failure relevent to the hypothesis you are testing?
b) If so, compare the collapses for both similarities and differences
8) Look at all available evidence and determine if it is
a) Relevent to testing the hypothesis
b) If it is relevent, test the hypothesis with it
i) If it supports the hypothesis, take note of it
ii) If it contradicts the hypothesis, review the hypothesis and
1) Modify
2) Discard and form a new hypothesis, start over at step (6)
3) Review relevence of data in step (8)(a)
c) if it is not relevent, discard the data
9) Present your working theory and all relevent data (pro and con) as to the collapse, and cause thereof, of the WTC building

 

[Pardalis]

Mutton-Head, I really don't understand why you absolutely need to have an example of a precedent in building collapse in order to discuss the WTC collapses. It was an unprecedented event in history! Things do happen for the first time someday.

ETA: So far you have been the only articulate and intelligent "conspiracist" (for lack of a better word, not meant as an insult) we've encountered!

ETA: Let's change "conspiracist" with "non-believer-in-the-official-story".

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes, thank you Huntsman, you did answer the question exactly 100% correct. Thank you.

The “challenge” comment was just a playful metaphor. But I'm beginning to get the feeling that we speak different languages. I think this will only serve to further exacerbate all of us. So, since Huntsman and I just reached probably the only agreement that we ever will, I will bid adieu.

Good-bye from the Mutton-Head

You know, I think you may be right. This forum speaks the language of scientific process, critical thinking, and sound logic. We use specific words to mean specific things, and strive for clarity in communication. We strive for accuracy in citations, relevent sources, corraboratable facts, testable hypothesis and thoroughness.

Your verbal dodging, and weaving; your playing fast and loose with definitions and interpretations; and your refusal to set aside your confirmational bias are certainly indicative of an inability for us to communicate.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

'Tis gone, and will not answer

You know, I think you may be right. This forum speaks the language of scientific process, critical thinking, and sound logic. We use specific words to mean specific things, and strive for clarity in communication. We strive for accuracy in citations, relevent sources, corraboratable facts, testable hypothesis and thoroughness.

Your verbal dodging, and weaving; your playing fast and loose with definitions and interpretations; and your refusal to set aside your confirmational bias are certainly indicative of an inability for us to communicate.

Look, he's not looking for a discussion. He's looking for one of the two following outcomes:

1. Confrontation
2. Conversion

He either wants you to explode in his face, so he can show that our side of this...uh, debate, for lack of a better word...are crazy people, and he's the sane, sober, and serious one, or...

That you realize the error of your ways, see the light, and join his army of conspiracy theorists.

Same thing with neo-Nazis and other wacky racers.

 

[Sultanist]

Thanks, folks, for the "thermite" help. Much obliged.

Bob

 

[Pardalis]

What a shame. For once I thought we would have a somewhat intelligent discussion about the subject.

I guess it's back to the insane asylum with the geggys and Christopheras...

 

[Tailgater]

Yes, thank you Huntsman, you did answer the question exactly 100% correct. Thank you.

The “challenge” comment was just a playful metaphor. But I'm beginning to get the feeling that we speak different languages. I think this will only serve to further exacerbate all of us. So, since Huntsman and I just reached probably the only agreement that we ever will, I will bid adieu.

Good-bye from the Mutton-Head

And thanks for doubting everything put in front of you and challenging us to provide you proof of something that's never happened.

I wish someone would answer the "why did they make it harder then they needed too? why didn't the government include explosions in claims of terrorist acts to avoid possible witnesses? and why didn't they plant wmds in Iraq?" Oh, that would make this arguement pointless wouldn't it.

Hell should add this to his sig since no one answers the question in his posts.

 

[XXX]

These threads really do move fast! If I may take a step back for a moment...

Here's a hypothetical example: Supposing I believe that a giant purple salamander is going out every morning and eating all the newspapers off the neighbor's driveways. I want to test this hypothesis by going out at 5:30 AM, right after they are delivered, and confirming that the newspapers are in fact lying on the driveways. An hour later, I go check them again. If my hypothesis is true, then the newspapers will be gone. Thus, the purple salamander hypothesis is proven.

If EVERY eyewitnesses impressions of what MIGHT have happened were included as evidence in the report, then it would be a very thick and largely meaningless document.

Nice post, but actually to make what I believe would be a more accurate comparison to his use of the fireman's quote would be if you were to say, upon seeing all the newspapers dissappear, "It was as if a giant purple salamander came along and ate all the newspapers off the neighbor's driveways". And then we take that line to mean that you have "assumed" that a giant purple salamander actually did it.

Also, I have a question/clarification. What exactly is the status of the blueprints for the WTC towers? In my research I have run accross several claims, but never a real definative answer. The CT's like to say that they were "classified" or made "top secret" after the towers collapsed, but I have read that they belong to the port authority. What exactly is the status of these blueprints, and are people actually able to get ahold of them? And were the exact blueprints themselves made available to the investigators?

 

[Ersby]

Good-bye from the Mutton-Head

And barely a few minutes after azazal's reply!

 

[dubfan]

Also, I have a question/clarification. What exactly is the status of the blueprints for the WTC towers? In my research I have run accross several claims, but never a real definative answer. The CT's like to say that they were "classified" or made "top secret" after the towers collapsed, but I have read that they belong to the port authority. What exactly is the status of these blueprints, and are people actually able to get ahold of them? And were the exact blueprints themselves made available to the investigators?

In the very last moments of the famous phone call with fellow conspiradroid Eric Hufschmid, one of the Loose Change crew claims to have bought the WTC blueprints from the Port Authority.

The remark is made at about the 1:01:17 point in the recording.

Standard disclaimer...