New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis

Sizzler said:
Thanks for the info guys.

I am very comfortable with my understanding of the NIST report now.

However NIST's analysis ends after collapse begins.

I am a bit confused with the current hypothesis for 'complete' or 'global' collapse mechanism.

Can someone link me to a scientific paper that describes a global collapse theory after collapse initiation?

What is the leading theory and paper on this?
Click to expand...

It would be like asking for a paper explaining how a plane got from the air to the ground after an engine failure. We wouldn't need a paper explaining how gravity works to know the plane is going to come down, we just need to know what caused it to come down. Once it has no more means to stay up, the rest is self explanatory.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
It would be like asking for a paper explaining how a plane got from the air to the ground after an engine failure. We wouldn't need a paper explaining how gravity works to know the plane is going to come down, we just need to know what caused it to come down. Once it has no more means to stay up, the rest is self explanatory.
Click to expand...


The analogy I use is to a dam breaking and causing a devastating flood. You investigate why the dam broke. You don't need to investigate why, after the dam broke, the water rushed downstream and destroyed things in its path.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Well it may be the "Mark of Woo", but we should still always reserve our judgement until, AND IF, the mark presents itself.

TAM;)
 
rwguinn said:
IS anybody else getting a sense of potential deja moo here.
I awit developments with worm on tongue..
Click to expand...

Reality Believer said:
I like to call it, having a "Ground Hog Day" moment.
Click to expand...

WildCat said:
Yep, Sizzler will come out as a full-blown truther in 3, 2, 1...
Click to expand...

T.A.M. said:
Well it may be the "Mark of Woo", but we should still always reserve our judgement until, AND IF, the mark presents itself.

TAM;)
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.....Deja woo?

I might be wrong but the pattern looks familiar.:rolleyes:
 
rwguinn said:
IS anybody else getting a sense of potential deja moo here.
I awit developments with worm on tongue..
Click to expand...
I don't see why it should matter. The questions are perfectly reasonable, and he shows an inclination to consider the material we've provided. The people who concern me are those who ask a question, get an answer, then unloose a torrent of additional questions before they've taken the time to review our answers.

I've always encouraged people who have questions about 9/11 to ask us what we know. Just ask! How hard is that? That's a helluva lot better than being lectured by the current crop of know-nothing truthers we have here.
 
Sizzler

It is important to understand how structures are designed when considering the ability or otherwise of the intact lower structure to substantively arrest any collapse of the upper part of the building. And these are necessarily complex.

Newton and others here are more qualified than I to comment on structural modelling, however I will try to summarise the key issues as they apply to your query.

Firstly, be aware that the structure of the towers was composite in nature, relying on the inter-relationship of floor, outer envelope, inner core, and roof level girders for overall stability. Specifically:

- The outer envelope handled the dynamic (wind) loadings and carried half (or so) of the weight of the floors.

- The inner core columns carried the remaining weight of the floors plus provided resistance to the overturning moment induced by the dynamic loadings.

- The floors, which were supported on lightweight trussed girder beams, braced the outer envelope.

- Roof level trussed girders transfered dynamic loads betwixt the outer envelope and inner core.

One of the first things to bear in mind, and usually overlooked by the Truth Movement, is the effect which the loss of one or more elements (whether in part or otherwise) might have on the remaining structure.

Next, you need to bear in mind how the individual structural members are designed and jointed. In particular they will be designed to carry loads in certain directions; a floor, for example, is not designed to transmit vertical structural load paths, and so on.

Now the moment a collapse is initiated, design load paths go straight out of the window. Structural elements will be moving in fairly random, although admitedly downwards, directions. They impact other members at angles, bounce off, and generally go rather chaotic. Now there is no way that the structure will be designed to accommodate this.

For example a column deflecting just a few hundred millimetres will hit a floor which has most certainly not been designed for that kind of suddenly imposed vertical load. The joints between the collapsing column and other elements are probably not designed or sufficient to take the changing load paths as the column rotates in the collapse sequence, etc.

So what we have post-initiation is a highly complex structural scenario which in terms of detailed modelling is just not particularly possible. What we can do, as Frank and other have done, is look at the bigger picture and determine whether there was enought energy to initiate and thereafter maintain the process. But there can't be a model which shows the collapse right down to ground level.

Does that help?
 
Last edited:
Good post, Architect. Truthers need to understand the concept of "sensitive dependance on initial conditions." thus any collapse model will be a generalization at best.
 
Gravy said:
I don't see why it should matter. The questions are perfectly reasonable, and he shows an inclination to consider the material we've provided. The people who concern me are those who ask a question, get an answer, then unloose a torrent of additional questions before they've taken the time to review our answers.

I've always encouraged people who have questions about 9/11 to ask us what we know. Just ask! How hard is that? That's a helluva lot better than being lectured by the current crop of know-nothing truthers we have here.
Click to expand...

Agreed Mark, but I think the thought here, is that we have seen a similar pattern of "just asking questions" before, and some get a little tired of the questions being followed by,

"but then what about...but 170 professors say this, but the towers couldn't have...."

I always hesitate to even mention the "Mark of Woo" because every time we do, there is a chance we could be wrong, and alienate someone who is HONESTLY just asking real questions...

TAM:)
 
Using the term "official hypothesis" always seems like a red flag to me, but he seems pretty sincere and has some genuine honest questions about NIST.
 
T.A.M. said:
Agreed Mark, but I think the thought here, is that we have seen a similar pattern of "just asking questions" before, and some get a little tired of the questions being followed by,

"but then what about...but 170 professors say this, but the towers couldn't have...."

I always hesitate to even mention the "Mark of Woo" because every time we do, there is a chance we could be wrong, and alienate someone who is HONESTLY just asking real questions...

TAM:)
Click to expand...

For once we could be talking to someone who sincerely has questions. So far Sizzler has been polite, seems to have read the materials presented to him, and has yet to throw out, under a veil of naivete, any of the usual truther arguments. It's been 33 posts thus far, and truthers are rarely that patient.

I could well be wrong though.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Yep, Sizzler will come out as a full-blown truther in 3, 2, 1...
Click to expand...


People accuse me of being too harsh with the twoofers, but every time someone like Sizzler comes along, I hope with all my heart that he's on the level. Just because I'm always disappointed is no reason to assume that the trend must continue. I mean, Sizzler could really be "asking questions." He could, couldn't he? It isn't absolutely inevitable that he will return after ignoring all the links Mark provided to announce that NIST didn't explain what happens after the collapse is initiated. Not absolutely inevitable, right?
 
Last edited:
Thanks a lot for all the information thus far.

I'm still reading what gravy posted.

A lot of you have expressed the idea that the collapses would have naturally proceeded to the ground after collapse initiation.

This might be clear to those of you that are experts, but, I am in no way an expert. Thus, I've asked for a paper describing the event. Gravy directed me to the right places. Thanks again:)

_______________________________

To address those that are suspicious of my intentions;

I'm Canadian. I recently learned about this debate via a friend (3 months ago). He passed zietgiest (sp??) over to me and I gave it a watch. I was skeptical because it wreaked of bogus conspiracy, but nonetheless, I was very curious.

I did some of my own research on the net and found a lot of disinformation in the film.

for example;

-quote mining
-squibs
-columns cut on an angle
-"pull it"
-etc etc etc etc.

I remained curious though because I was not familiar with the specifics of the official story and certain aspects of the alternative theory.

I am currently going through my own process of understanding.

I came here and posted because it is the best blog site I have found thus far for this topic.

So anyway, I hope you guys understand where I am at.
 
Sizzler said:
Thanks a lot for all the information thus far.

I'm still reading what gravy posted.

A lot of you have expressed the idea that the collapses would have naturally proceeded to the ground after collapse initiation.

This might be clear to those of you that are experts, but, I am in no way an expert. Thus, I've asked for a paper describing the event. Gravy directed me to the right places. Thanks again:)

_______________________________

To address those that are suspicious of my intentions;

I'm Canadian. I recently learned about this debate via a friend (3 months ago). He passed zietgiest (sp??) over to me and I gave it a watch. I was skeptical because it wreaked of bogus conspiracy, but nonetheless, I was very curious.

I did some of my own research on the net and found a lot of disinformation in the film.

for example;

-quote mining
-squibs
-columns cut on an angle
-"pull it"
-etc etc etc etc.

I remained curious though because I was not familiar with the specifics of the official story and certain aspects of the alternative theory.

I am currently going through my own process of understanding.

I came here and posted because it is the best blog site I have found thus far for this topic.

So anyway, I hope you guys understand where I am at.
Click to expand...


Well, I'll crawl out on a limb and state that I think he's legit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom