New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis

FactCheck said:
I'm really troubled by the use of words here.. He calls the NIST report an "Official story" and the conspiracy story an "Alternative theory." My antenna just went up...
Click to expand...

I don't think I used the words "Official story",

I think I used "official hypothesis" and "alternative hypothesis".

This is simple, and correct, no?

Anyway, lets get back to the collapse mechanism. I am still a little unclear about the core columns and their failure.
 
Sizzler said:
I don't exactly know what would make me a twoofer or not.

With that said;

I am still unable to wrap my mind around the fall times of the progressive collapse.

I can't ignore conservation of momentum and energy; especially when the "piledriver" consists of the exact same material that it is crushing.

Help me out guys.
Click to expand...

Sizzler,

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're honestly looking for answers to your questions. At least until or unless you show otherwise. Having said that, I will leave the explanations of mass, kinetic energy, collapse mechanisms, etc. to others better able to explain them than I.

I will give you two pieces of unsolicited advice though:

1. If you truly want answers, read materials other than Jones, whose "paper" you cited earlier. He has been proven wrong on many issues many times before, and is hardly what one could call a reliable, unbiased source.

2. You've mentioned a few times you're having trouble "wrapping your mind around" certain things. It's understandable; the physics of such a system are very complex and often counter intuitive. But be careful and do not let your own lack of understanding or disbelief cloud your judgement. This fallacy is known as an argument from personal incredulity. Just because you do not believe or understand something does not make it untrue. Personally I find it hard to believe that men willing engage in sexual acts with women, and yet it certainly happens every day.
 
beachnut said:
I am sorry for being a pain, but I find engineers who signed the 9/11 truth petition not to be knowledgeable on 9/11 at all. I think your efforts to estimate the WTC mass are fine. That said, I was looking to see how you got certified proprietary information on the WTC. Or if you are just making an educated estimate. I think your being a member of 9/11 truth in different areas make your work ironic. I am sorry, but the petition is cloaked in ignorance and you have joined a group of people misleading others. I find that pathetic. But you work is just an estimate, and it is funny how you try to shape other peoples work with you new estimate and make errors even a lowly engineer, like yourself can spot.

What was the thickness of fireproofing on core columns you used when it was wallboard only (gypsum board)?

I did not know you had the proprietary plans for the WTC. I checked your sources and did not find evidence of that. I assume your mass is an estimate.
Click to expand...

I have never stated that I have any proprietary plans for the WTC. I used estimates from NIST for the SDLs which include fireproofing. For arguments sake, say I left out all of the fireproofing. How much would that weigh? Is it significant or is it more like 1%?

In the introduction, I clearly state:

The purpose of this paper is to establish a substantiated mass, mass distribution and potential energy in World Trade Center Tower 1 (north tower) within a reasonable margin of error. It's an estimate, but it's the best estimate we have. Or would it be better to use completely unsubstantiated claims of 500,000 tons?
 
Sizzler said:
So you mean the floors failed first, and then the core columns failed next because they were unsupported?
Click to expand...

It's probably best not to try to think of the failures of floor, truss, perimeter and core as distinct events--they are all intertwined as to cause and effect..
Floor failures are going to pull the verticals toward the center of the floor span, and when the connections fail, you have a leaning, unsupported column with lots of stuff hitting it from odd angles and varying velocities, with a LOT of energy available. Chaos, remember?
Yes, some of the core columns were still standing, temporarily, as is obvious from the photos you have been linked to. Notice how they are not very well tied together?
How long will a 1000 foot high TV broadcast antenna stand if you take away the guy wires?

ETA--
from the video linked in the next post (from factcheck) you can see that there are some columns standing on the RH side of the video. You can also see that they apparently collapse from the bottom--as one might expect with all the crap hitting down there...
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
I don't think I used the words "Official story",

I think I used "official hypothesis" and "alternative hypothesis".

This is simple, and correct, no?

Anyway, lets get back to the collapse mechanism. I am still a little unclear about the core columns and their failure.
Click to expand...
Did you write this?


I remained curious though because I was not familiar with the specifics of the official story and certain aspects of the alternative theory.
Click to expand...
It seems that way from a quote above.
 
Also, if you would like to get back to the mechanism of collapse please address what I have already written. I know it's hard to juggle 3 conversations a time. I suspect that might be the reason.
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
It's probably best not to try to think of the failures of floor, truss, perimeter and core as distinct events--they are all intertwined as to cause and effect..
Floor failures are going to pull the verticals toward the center of the floor span, and when the connections fail, you have a leaning, unsupported column with lots of stuff hitting it from odd angles and varying velocities, with a LOT of energy available. Chaos, remember?
Yes, some of the core columns were still standing, temporarily, as is obvious from the photos you have been linked to. Notice how they are not very well tied together?
How long will a 1000 foot high TV broadcast antenna stand if you take away the guy wires?
Click to expand...

Thanks for your explanation. It makes sense.

Again I picture a progressive collapse as having some kind of order.

One floor collapses, then the next, then the next, etc.

However, as you mentioned, the collapse would have been chaotic.

So in this chaos, is it reasonable to assume that all downward forces were evenly distributed such that each floor failed evenly and symmetrically?

This is why I have a hard time with the progressive model considering the core columns.

All would the core columns would have to have failed evenly.

Right?
 
FactCheck said:
Also, if you would like to get back to the mechanism of collapse please address what I have already written. I know it's hard to juggle 3 conversations a time. I suspect that might be the reason.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I apologize.

I accept everything about the official hypothesis/account/report/findings/etc, except the collapses of the twin towers.

This doesn't mean I accept the alternative by default.

It may be more likely that I just don't understand the physics of the failure.

That is why I am here, and not 9-11 blogger or LC blog site.

This blog is filled with lots of experts that can explain it to me.

If I continue to ask questions, it is because I still don't understand.

In the beginning of this post I had problems understanding how a progressive collapse could actually accelerate. Many people here helped me out and now I understand.

Now my next question is how the core plays into the progressive collapse.

Is this the wrong blog for me to ask such questions?
 
Sizzler said:
Thanks for your explanation. It makes sense.

Again I picture a progressive collapse as having some kind of order.

One floor collapses, then the next, then the next, etc.

However, as you mentioned, the collapse would have been chaotic.

So in this chaos, is it reasonable to assume that all downward forces were evenly distributed such that each floor failed evenly and symmetrically?

This is why I have a hard time with the progressive model considering the core columns.

All would the core columns would have to have failed evenly.

Right?
Click to expand...
Even if explosives caused the collapse of the top section, you would have core columns of the top section ramming into the floors below wouldn't you? Wouldn't they remove the floors and connections to other columns? If not why not? I would predict the columns would ram through the floors like a straw through a juice carton.
 
Sizzler said:
Is this the wrong blog for me to ask such questions?
Click to expand...
No, it's just the wrong forum to pretend to ask questions. We get many questions asked by people who don't want to hear the answer. Some start out sounding just like you, so I apologize if I am skeptical of your motives here.

Now will you address what I have written?
 
Last edited:
GregoryUrich said:
I have never stated that I have any proprietary plans for the WTC. I used estimates from NIST for the SDLs which include fireproofing. For arguments sake, say I left out all of the fireproofing. How much would that weigh? Is it significant or is it more like 1%?

In the introduction, I clearly state:

The purpose of this paper is to establish a substantiated mass, mass distribution and potential energy in World Trade Center Tower 1 (north tower) within a reasonable margin of error. It's an estimate, but it's the best estimate we have. Or would it be better to use completely unsubstantiated claims of 500,000 tons?
Click to expand...
I already know the outcome of your work, it is like watching the movie Titanic and wondering if the outcome is different. I used the full scale model to check my work. I think your work is better than some. I mean some work says the WTC was designed for a 600 mph 707 impact and that is proven wrong by the chief engineer. So at least your estimate is better than out right lies of others who share your affiliation in 9/11 truth.

Most of the works published at you 9/11 truth movement club journal are works of fiction with major errors. Your estimate is not in the same class as those works of fraud. Good for you, your work is an order of magnitude more truthful than your peers at the old woo peer review journal. At least you work is the best of your peers in 9/11 truth.
 
Last edited:
HereticHulk said:
Why does that even matter?:confused:
Click to expand...

Because people who HONESTLY want answers from the people here because they want to learn, are respected, appreciated, and aided appropriately.

Those who come here with a hidden agenda, but try to play the members here with the good old "I am just curious, uncertain, and asking questions", convinced they CAN LEAD PEOPLE TO THEIR PRECONCEIVED CONCLUSIONS (hence the Socratic part), is not appreciated, and is all too common with the truther crowd "posing" here as of late.

For now I remain AGNOSTIC on whether Sizzler is genuine, or "Socratic" in his discussions...only time will tell.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
Thanks for your explanation. It makes sense.

Again I picture a progressive collapse as having some kind of order.

One floor collapses, then the next, then the next, etc.

However, as you mentioned, the collapse would have been chaotic.

So in this chaos, is it reasonable to assume that all downward forces were evenly distributed such that each floor failed evenly and symmetrically?

This is why I have a hard time with the progressive model considering the core columns.

All would the core columns would have to have failed evenly.

Right?
Click to expand...


Sizzler, it looks like we may need 2 pieces of information from you so we can address this issue from the proper perspective.

1. Do you understand the basic concept of how the floors, cores, and outer columns were tied together and how they all depended on each other to keep the building standing?

2. A lot of what we need to explain is in terms of physics, and structural engineering so we need to know if you have any experience in either of these fields. Having no experience in either is fine but if that is the case we will try to use real-world examples instead of terms used in those fields.

Be warned, though, that explaining engineering concepts in non-engineering terms can be very difficult so you may keep getting explanations that lean more towards technical than generic.
 
FactCheck said:
No, it's just the wrong forum to pretend to ask questions. We get many questions asked by people who don't want to hear the answer. Some start out sounding just like you, so I appoligize if I am skeptical of your motives here.

Now will you address what I have written?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm getting lost here.

Let me get this straight and let know where I go wrong.

The connections that held the floors between the perimeter and core were weak.

Thus they offered very little resistance to the falling upper floors and broke. Thus falling to the next level, causing further breakage.

At the same time the core the core columns failed because of lack of support when the floors broke away.

correct?

I accept that although some core columns remained after the collapse, they would have failed because they were weakened and unsupported
 
GT/CS said:
Sizzler, it looks like we may need 2 pieces of information from you so we can address this issue from the proper perspective.

1. Do you understand the basic concept of how the floors, cores, and outer columns were tied together and how they all depended on each other to keep the building standing?

2. A lot of what we need to explain is in terms of physics, and structural engineering so we need to know if you have any experience in either of these fields. Having no experience in either is fine but if that is the case we will try to use real-world examples instead of terms used in those fields.

Be warned, though, that explaining engineering concepts in non-engineering terms can be very difficult so you may keep getting explanations that lean more towards technical than generic.
Click to expand...

I have no engineering experience.

I have 1st year university physics under my belt and then it ends there.

answers.

1. so so

2. no
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom