New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis

[pomeroo]

No one has shown me a replica of a microsphere that totally matches the ones Jones' found.

Fly ash seems to be the best so far considering it would turn into a sphere due to air tension.

If they are natural, fly ash microspheres should be easily collected from other buildings dust.

Can anyone point to a paper or a blog that refutes Jones' claim to a high degree.

Not just, it could have been this, maybe it was that.

I have to say that for someone who has just begun to dip his toes into the ocean of 9/11 arcana, you have picked up the lingo remarkably quickly. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you weren't new to this stuff.

 

[LashL]

My straightforward answer is a question.

Why would you like to know?

Isn't this a little silly?

If you truly want to know where I am posting from then provide a reason why.

If you don't, I will simply ignore you because this is borderline creepy.

Was this post of yours directed to me? You didn't quote my post, although it is apparent that you know how to use the quote function, so I missed your post the first time around and I am not entirely sure whether your unattributed post was intended as a response to mine or to some other unattributed post.

If it was directed to me in response to my question about where you are posting from, what is "creepy" about asking what country you are posting from?

Do you seriously think that it is "creepy" to ask such a simple and straightforward question?

Seriously?

What could possibly be "creepy" about such a simple, non-identifying, straightforward question?

Personally, I think it is rather odd that that you are so reluctant to even identify the country from which you are posting while you are here discussing events that are clearly international in scope.

I do not understand why you are so terribly reluctant to identify the country from which you are posting and I do not understand your weird labeling of a simple and straightforward question as "creepy".

Please elucidate.

Full disclosure: I think your tinhat is showing, despite your best efforts to conceal it to date.

 

[Sizzler]

It is not hostility, these things can be looked up on line. Looks like you fell into a pile of 9/11 truth junk. If you have real questions you will ignore the BS and check the facts. If not, then you are a Jones thermite truther. I added the real source for you, you did not post a source yet; I found many WOO sites of truther spewing the eutectic change, if you look at the piece of A36 steel you will see it was burnt to death! What it looks like to me.

9/11 truth movement takes stuff and pushes lies. They post this report http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html, and make it a smoking gun kind of BS truth thing. You were fooled!

You could search for these topic, even on line; if you stay away from truther sites, or at least read and understand their refreercnce; just look up their own referdcnec; you will find many of the truther sites can be debunked by their own refrercnece. Funny stuff. And if you read and understand what the truth sited say, you will see, like in the case of " section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure...", they have no conclusion but to make you thiink there is something wrong. OMG look what the one of the web sites of WOO does with the JOM stuff

Wow, liars are 9/11 truth. Look up the junk they just make up.
9/11 woo sites says
The truth is

Truth is not "9/11 truth"; it is what you find on your own, using your brain to guide you. Understanding people are not telling the truth because they have fooled you. You are asking 9/11 truth junk; pure made up junk.

9/11 truth tells you the evidence was gone, but the real researchers were gathering the evidence and making changes! The real engineers and scientists are making a difference and they were out there right after 9/11 getting the facts; while the idiots of 9/11 truth were making up lies.

I cited JOM in reference to the temperatures and intergranular melting.

Again. 1000 degrees C was needed.

Can rubble fires naturally reach 1000 degrees C.

Some say yes. Some say no.

End of story.

Move on.

 

[Sizzler]

I have to say that for someone who has just begun to dip his toes into the ocean of 9/11 arcana, you have picked up the lingo remarkably quickly. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you weren't new to this stuff.

The majority of my research thus far has indeed been in the truth movements literature.

Now I am researching the official hypothesis. I actually never really gave to much thought about collapse mechanism before I was introduced to alternative.

I am on the fence with the towers.

I can accept everything else (pentagon, hijackers, etc) but still haven't been satisfied with the towers' collapses.

 

[Pardalis]

If you accept the highjackers scenario, then how can you even contemplate the CD theory?

Aren't they both mutually exclusive?

 

[beachnut]

I cited JOM in reference to the temperatures and intergranular melting.

Again. 1000 degrees C was needed.

Can rubble fires naturally reach 1000 degrees C.

Some say yes. Some say no.

End of story.

Move on.

yes, end of story

it was WTC7 steel

I posted the conclusions of real expert on the WTC 1 and 2 steel the 9/11 truth movement lied about being gone!

I also showed you how 9/11 truth used work about A36 steel and made up lies that it was proof of explosives.

So far all your questions are staple 9/11 truth junk

end of story

 

[pomeroo]

The majority of my research thus far has indeed been in the truth movements literature.

Now I am researching the official hypothesis. I actually never really gave to much thought about collapse mechanism before I was introduced to alternative.

I am on the fence with the towers.

I can accept everything else (pentagon, hijackers, etc) but still haven't been satisfied with the towers' collapses.

Conspiracy loons have wasted six years in a fruitless search for anomalies in the mainstream account. Do you find it strange that no structural engineers or physicists outside America have found errors in the NIST Report? NASA engineer Ryan Mackey published a 200-page whitepaper refuting the errors and falsehoods about the NIST Report disseminated by David Ray Griffin. Mackey solicits feedback, but, as Homer might say, an ox stands on the collective tongue of the fantasy movement. If a controversy is truly raging, where are the "experts" who have a better explanation for the collapses of the Towers?

 

[Arus808]

sorry guys, but the repeated questioning by sizzler, and nitpicking has perked my "truther-dar" up. I dont believe that sizzler is at all interested in the answers as demonstrated by his repeated questions

when all he could do is
1) read the papers in total
2) then bring up his question here,
3) then contact the authors of the papers to get more answers.

sorry, but for someone who is interested in teh "answers" after 2 pages, Im sure they would have found it. this is now page 8

 

[Quad4_72]

Hmmm. Sizzler I have been reading through the entire thread and I still don't see where you are getting lost. Many pages of scientific literature has been provided to you but yet you still can't grasp the collapse of the towers. Why is that just out of curiosity? What specific part do you think that the couple hundred of VERY qualified engineers that put together the 10,000 page report on the collapse of the towers got wrong? Are you suggesting that the thousands of experts around the world somehow missed something when reviewing the NIST report that you are going to find? Sorry if that sounds rude but you gotta put it into perspective.

 

[tsig]

Thanks for the comment

But I don't think all progressive collapses would accelerate, thus it is a fair question.

You don't think there is the problem. We all keep telling you gravity. You failed physics right?

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is actually a very good question, that I think has been brushed over. Has anyone actually taken video of the collapses and calculated the propagating speed of the collapse? Did it actually accelerate (obviously it initially accelerated) and if so, was the acceleration constant, or did it slow, or did it increase?

Einsteen did something like this by taking slices from a video and displaying them sequentially. I think he got something like 2/3 G initial acceleration. Since the collapse time goes as the square root of the acceleration, this would give a shorter collapse time than was observed, so I suspect the graph doesn't stay purely parabolic in the later stages, but by this time the errors are getting rather big and the roof line is lost in the dust anyway.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

My next question:

There was more that enough energy in the falling upper section of the building to cause the next floor below it to collapse, and then the next, and all the way to the bottom.

So why didn't the collapse progressively slow down as energy was used up as each floor collapsed?

I keep thinking about pool balls. When the cue ball hits another, it slows down.

So why didn't the collapse slow down?

It did slow down. Every time another floor was hit, the collapse slowed down. In between hitting floors, it speeded up. However, it speeded up more between impacts than it slowed down at each impact. Mathematically that's equivalent to saying that the collapse kept going all the way to the ground. If the building had been so ridiculously over-engineered as to be able to slow the collapse more at each impact than it speeded up between impacts then the collapse would have been stopped part way down; however, making it that strong would have required so much steel that there probably wouldn't have been room for any offices in the towers.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Kuttler paper is this one:

Estimates for time to collapse of WTC1

can be found at journal of 9-11 studies.

I am of course skeptical of this paper because it isn't from a legit peer reviewed journal.

But, could you let me know where Kuttler goes wrong.

I made quite a few comments about Kuttler's paper a while back.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98714

The beginner's summary is that Kuttler bases his analysis on a whole raft of invalid assumptions, all of which are absurdly biased in favour of slowing the collapse times. Some of his assumptions are justified by a third-hand anonymous witness account that's only available on a copy of a magazine article that's been archived on a truther website and doesn't even support the assumptions made (no, I'm not making this up!) and others are neither justified, referenced or even discussed. Overall his conclusions are entirely without rational foundation.

Dave

 

[tsig]

Thanks everyone for your comments.

I'm slowly getting there.

Let me summarize and tell me if I get anything wrong.

1. All aspects of the building (core,perimeter, trusses, etc) have to be considered as a single unit because they all depend on each other for support.

2. The falling mass of the building has more energy than could be resisted by the lower floor (this includes all parts of the lower floor, core perimete, trusses, etc) so the lower floor collapsed to.

3. The resistance (loss of energy to falling part) of lower floors is less than the energy gained by gravitational forces.

4. Thus the collapse accelerated and was observed as close to free-fall.


So my next logical question is, if you guys were able to explain this to a layman like myself, why do certain engineers not accept this hypothesis.

Please treat this question fairly.

What part of the above mechanism do they not agree with?

For example:

Do they not agree with the estimated weight of the upper part and thus the KE exerted on the lower section?

Where do the truthers go wrong?

Just where you did. I did not need NIST to tell me why the buildings fell. I have three engineering degrees.

 

[tsig]

I'm not aware of a single structural engineer – or anyone else – who has written a paper that claims to show that the towers should not have completely collapsed, that would pass muster with the engineers here or with the reviewers of an engineering journal.

People are free to have their opinions, but if opinions about engineering matters aren't backed by sound reasoning and calculations, I feel free to disregard them, as do the hundreds of thousands of engineers worldwide who don't accept tripe as truth.

People like Steven Jones are willing to disregard facts, logic, and their own educations and professional standards for political reasons. There will always be people like that. As with the people who falsely claimed to be 9/11 victims for financial gain, 9/11 and the subsequent U.S. wars brought out the worst in some people. It's just sad that so many people have abandoned critical thinking and held up these obvious incompetents and charlatans up as champions of "truth."

I think Steven Jones always thought he was smarter than anyone else in the classroom including the teacher.

 

[Sizzler]

It did slow down. Every time another floor was hit, the collapse slowed down. In between hitting floors, it speeded up. However, it speeded up more between impacts than it slowed down at each impact. Mathematically that's equivalent to saying that the collapse kept going all the way to the ground. If the building had been so ridiculously over-engineered as to be able to slow the collapse more at each impact than it speeded up between impacts then the collapse would have been stopped part way down; however, making it that strong would have required so much steel that there probably wouldn't have been room for any offices in the towers.

Dave

Someone earlier in this thread said the collapse would have accelerated.

Thanks. I have my mind wrapped around a progressive collapse now.

Help me out with this one now though:

When the north tower collapsed, the top section did not crush down initially.

Several floors collapsed on the top part of the building first, and then it started crushing down.

Does this violate progressive collapse?

The initial collapse of the building did not crush the top floor of the lower section. The top floor resisted the collapse crushing the upper section.

Thus initially, the KE of the top section did not cause failure of the upper floor of the lower section. Is the whole point of progressive collapse based on this point; that the floor below the collapsing section cannot resist the collapse?

Would this totally change the findings of Bazant and others?

Why is this totally ignored thus far? How did these papers pass peer review when they obviously ignore a huge observation (ie, the falling section did not cause the upper floor of the lower section to initially fail, it stayed intact and instead several floors from the bottom of the falling section failed. After that the rest failed.)

Someone address this question please.

Thanks.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hokulele:

I read the link you provided.

I think the issues Dave Rogers brought up are debatable.

Sorry, missed Hokulele's post hence the double reference. If the issues I brought up are debatable, please feel free to debate them. In particular, if you have evidence that justifies any of Kuttler's assumptions that I claim are unjustified, please present it. I'll be happy to modify the comments, and now is a good time for any revisions because it's been submitted to, but not yet published in, JoD911. What specifically did you feel was debatable, and what are the issues you have with it?

Dave

 

[tsig]

I don't prescribe to this line of argument.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

That is why I am not satisfied reading an article and then accepting it as truth, even if it has passed peer review.

I have to satisfy myself, and that is why I came here.

This also works in the other direction in that a sound article may be rejected due to a bias.

These are all possibilities in this complex world where politics often influences science (I believe this to be true for only the short term, not the long term. Good science will always prevail given enough time)

That is why I am skeptical and ask the questions I do.

I hope you have satisfied your self by hand and have wiped off.

 

[Dave Rogers]

When the north tower collapsed, the top section did not crush down initially.

Several floors collapsed on the top part of the building first, and then it started crushing down.

Does this violate progressive collapse?

From the videos I've seen of the collapse of the north tower, it's extremely difficult to tell whether it's the top block or the bottom block crushing in the initial stages of the collapse. I've seen some conspiracist videos with red lines drawn in to show where the collapse front is or should be at any given time, but they're not convincing. To state that crush up preceded crush down as a verified fact is, therefore, something of an overbid here.

The initial collapse of the building did not crush the top floor of the lower section. The top floor resisted the collapse crushing the upper section.

Thus initially, the KE of the top section did not cause failure of the upper floor of the lower section. Is the whole point of progressive collapse based on this point; that the floor below the collapsing section cannot resist the collapse?

No. There's a lot more kinetic energy to come from the subsequent impacts.

Let's assume that the top fifteen floors fell one storey, and impacted the next floor down with kinetic energy 15mgh, where m is the mass of one floor, g is the acceleration due to gravity, and h is the height of one floor. The energy is derived from the potential energy converted to kinetic energy. In the collision, let's assume that the lowest floor of the upper block is collapsed, but that the uppermost floor of the lower block survives entirely undamaged; this scenario is unrealistically biased in favour of collapse termination. Some amount e1 of energy will be lost, but we know that e1 must be very much less than 15mgh otherwise the floor would not collapse. The kinetic energy after collision is therefore 15mgh-e1. Fourteen floors now fall through another height h, increasing the kinetic energy by 14mgh, so the value of kinetic energy is now 29mgh-e1, which must be greater than 15mgh. Therefore, the energy of the second collision is greater than that of the first. If even this is not sufficient to collapse the uppermost storey of the lower block, the third collision has an even greater energy. In reality, the lower floor will sustain some damage. Sooner or later, it will give way. The next floor down will then be hit with an even greater kinetic energy, and so the collapse will progress.

Dave

 

[tsig]

Hmm, lessee...new poster with "questions"...thread grows to seven pages within a couple of days...why oh why do I get the inescapable feeling that I've been here before, and that even without looking, I can probably tell how this thread has evolved?

Just JAGing. Maybe they give out prizes if you make a hundred posts at JREF.