construction worker killed in pancake collapse

[Without Rights]

Why did it collapse right down to the ground under only the effect of gravity?

Pancake collapses happen, what is your point.

Why didn't it need some explosive assistance to "overcome the resistance" of the structure below?

Because the steel did not break and remained upright

so we have to extrapolate from what we have.

What do you have with this example

So, maybe just possibly, structures can fail due to dynamic loads, even if they were designed to support similar static loads. Maybe. Just possibly?

AIf the steel would have broken you may have a point but it didn't so this is irrelevant.

 

[Horatius]

Pancake collapses happen, what is your point.

Because the steel did not break and remained upright

What do you have with this example

If the steel would have broken you may have a point but it didn't so this is irrelevant.

That's what the "scale" issue is for. Now, imagine if, instead of being one slab in a fairly small building, it was the entire floor structure in one of the biggest buildings ever built.

Can you imagine that this might have a larger effect?

We extraplolate from smaller examles all the time, because it's much easier to replicate a small example. With care and skill, we can predict how larger versions will work on the basis of these examples.

If you can't see that, then you'll never get it. Nothing less than a full-scale re-enactment will satify you. And even then, you might not be satisfied.

 

[Without Rights]

We extraplolate from smaller examles all the time, because it's much easier to replicate a small example. With care and skill, we can predict how larger versions will work on the basis of these examples.

So based on a pancake collapse that happened while the building was being built where no steel was damaged and the building remained standing you "predict" that this proves WTC fell in a pancake collapse. Is that an educated guess or is there anything solid that this collapse brings to the table?

If you can't see that, then you'll never get it. Nothing less than a full-scale re-enactment will satify you. And even then, you might not be satisfied.

I see it, I see you reaching. Let us see. If I don't think this collapse proves the twoofers wrong I will never be convinced, is that another theory of yours. I think they both need some work.

Just for the record I never said 911 wasn't a pancake collapse I said this collapse doesn't prove 911 was a pancake collapse. The thought that it does is just as far reaching as saying dust proves bombs were used.

 

[uk_dave]

No, it proves that one floor falling upon another will cause that floor to fail and collapse.

 

[Horatius]

So based on a pancake collapse that happened while the building was being built where no steel was damaged and the building remained standing you "predict" that this proves WTC fell in a pancake collapse. Is that an educated guess or is there anything solid that this collapse brings to the table?

It doesn't prove it. It's data that can be used with other data to make predictions.

What it does prove is that collapses can happen under only the influence of gravity, and that the structure below the point of initiation doesn't provide any significant resistance to the collapse, which proceeds at close to "free fall time". The Twofers have been insisting that such collapses "violate the laws of physics". This shows that such things happen in other places, not just at the WTC on 9/11.

To simply dismiss this example because it doesn't replicate every detail of the WTC is wrong, as this sort of thing is the best data we'll likely ever get, barring some eccentric billionaire with something to prove taking on the task.

Also, you mention "no steel" being damaged, but that's a stretch as well. There was no real information given on the rest of the structure. From what I saw, they were "evaluating" it to see if it was still sound. So don't go putting out new claims for which there's no evidence. We already have enough of that.

 

[firecoins]

This goes to show you should not eat pancakes.

 

[JimBenArm]

This goes to show you should not eat pancakes.

Yeah, you never hear of waffle collapses.

 

[Without Rights]

No, it proves that one floor falling upon another will cause that floor to fail and collapse.

We already knew that for ages, the question isn't whether pancake collapses happen. It is whether this collapse proves anything about 911 and the answer is an astonding no.

 

[Without Rights]

It doesn't prove it. It's data that can be used with other data to make predictions.

What data did you or others derive from this collapse?

What it does prove is that collapses can happen under only the influence of gravity

No it doesn't, this buildings floors fell due to error while installing a concrete slab. The steel still stands so there was no collapse of a building in this example. The only thing that happened was a pancake of concrete slabs which is not a new occurrence.
,

and that the structure below the point of initiation doesn't provide any significant resistance to the collapse, which proceeds at close to "free fall time".

How do you know these floors fell at freefall speed?
And the steel still stands, it's resistance stood strong.

The Twofers have been insisting that such collapses "violate the laws of physics". This shows that such things happen in other places, not just at the WTC on 9/11.

Completely different, once again because the steel is undamaged, and you have no clue how fast these floors fell in the example.

To simply dismiss this example because it doesn't replicate every detail of the WTC is wrong, as this sort of thing is the best data we'll likely ever get, barring some eccentric billionaire with something to prove taking on the task.

So you are saying this building is a scientific model for how WTC collapsed. That is the most skewed science I have ever heard of.

Also, you mention "no steel" being damaged, but that's a stretch as well. There was no real information given on the rest of the structure. From what I saw, they were "evaluating" it to see if it was still sound. So don't go putting out new claims for which there's no evidence. We already have enough of that.

You mean like your evidence that this buildings floors fell at free-fall speed. The building is clearly visible in the background. All the pillars and cross beams look intack to me. Does this mean that if new information comes out that says the steel wasn't damaged you will change your position? I think not, you are just as determined to prove CT's wrong as they are to prove themselves right. This example has no scientific bases for analysis and no correlation whatsoever to WTC.