Need help with a CTer "asking questions"

[The Almond]

Yes. 8den, the NIST report explicitly refutes "pancaking" as the cause of the tower collapses, so your opponent's use of that term is either a strawman argument or a sign that he/she hasn't even read the NIST FAQ, much less the executive summaries or the whole report.

This is such a nuanced theory, I wish more people understood this like you do, Gravy. I hate it when CTers use the pancaking theory because they use it to discount NIST (when claiming that NIST supports the theory), discount self initiated collapse (When claiming that NIST does not support the theory), and use it to cast doubt on NIST (When claiming that NIST switched theories).

8den, I would suggest nipping the "pancake" term in the bud. Refer to the NIST FAQ for better details.

 

[Architect]

Progressive collapse is the proper term.



Although I have to admit that a lot of us in the construction industry are lazy and use the term "pancake" a bit more widely than we should

 

[WilliamSeger]

At the end of the day, their biggest problem is (I suppose) the complete and utter lack of any meaningful evidence - in stark contrast to the accepted account of the collapse.

I think the biggest problem for demolition CTs is that any hypothesis that doesn't fit the observations is a useless hypothesis. It's much worse than one not (yet) supported by evidence, because you can rule it out immediately. So, any valid collapse hypothesis has to account for the inward bowing on just one wall -- which, as you pointed out, can't happen if the floor diaphragm is intact -- occurring s-l-o-w-l-y over a period of time, and just on those couple of floors at the impact zone, and with no other walls visibly affected. Then, the (observable) beginning of the collapse has to occur with those columns buckling inward. I had to laugh out loud at Gordon Ross' attempt to explain all that in Phase I of his four-phase hypothesis -- some nonsense about cutting the core columns at an angle. There wan't any point in reading the rest of it.

 

[HeyLeroy]

9 levels? Huh? Why do you need charges in 9 levels? Which 9? The 9 in the collapse zone? Does he think that once the collapse started, it would proceed w/o the use the demolition (that would mean he's alot smarter than most CTers)? If so then why do we need charges? To start the collapse?

Does that mean he thinks the pilots were aiming at a particular part of the building? After all, there are only 9 floors with charges... If he doesn't hit the right place in the building... the collapse will start in the wrong place. If so, how does he think the charges survived the impact?

My answer to the question would be... Placing the charges on 9 levels is the easy part. Finding explosives that don't many any noise and are plane-impact resistant, that's the hard part.

​

I think he may have gotten the '9 levels' part from a thread I started elsewhere.

A while back MarkyX started a good thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64843) I boiled the numbers down a bit and posted it at screwloosechange.

The building in question had nine levels rigged for the demo:

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

Coincidence? Or CONSPIRACY?!?

 

[Anti-sophist]

Yes, nine levels for a proper CD. A "top-down" CD would require charges on every level.

 

[HeyLeroy]

A proper CD of a building less than a third the height of one of the towers....

 

[8den]

Victory is mine!!!! Oh wait, ours

The CTer surrendered pretty reasonably after gravy's link. Hilarious' he mods the conspiracy theory section of an irish board I frequent, and is a JFK nutter, after I trashed his JFK claims (though he assures me he was "very substantial" evidence George Bush Sr was the main "orchestrator" of the JFK assasination, he's just hasn't bothered to offer any evidence two months after he made the claim), he banned me from the forum for asking for the evidence, he'd not presented but the site mod's removed the ban (see that on LC forums)

He tried to flex his muscles on the 9/11 thread and ran off, now admittable he did give up, but his believe in the theory was dubious, I think he just thought he could out think me. I'm not saying I'm very smart, but if you look at the quote above from him and claiming it's a "theory" and having to explain the difference between a theory and a guess was a bit "these are small dougal, those are far away, small, far away, small, far away"

His CT was a bit half hearted but he did admit he was wrong. Considering this debunking is form of intellectual masochism* Any victory is a trimuoh.




*no seriously frustrated, confused angry at a CTer? posting the same cliched debunked nonsense over and over again? Save yourself the hassle, cancel the home hospice stay and walk away a long distance from a load bearing wall and then run towards it at speed with your head down.

Compared to arguing with a CTer the headache will be over quicker, you'll suffer less brain damage, and you can enjoy your holiday.