New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis

Sizzler, I am not an engineer so this is just a laymans guess, but the damaged area (and the heat weakened area above it) was much larger than just one floor, so upon the inital collapse could not several upper floors have been predisposed to fall apart somehwat more easily than the lower?
 
Sizzler said:
[qimg]http://gordonssite.com/demolition/2003-0000.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://gordonssite.com/demolition/2003-0101.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://gordonssite.com/demolition/2003-0120.jpg[/qimg]



Now that is a lot of floors, either being crushed up, or falling inside the perimeter columns.

If they are falling inside the perimeter columns and thus destroying the upper floors of the lower section, what is keeping the perimeter columns stationary? Their connections would have been destroyed.

It is my opinion that we are seeing crush up, simply because the perimeter of the lower section remains intact.

I'm sorry, but this is in direct violation of Bazant's "theory".
Click to expand...

Can someone find non lines added of this so I can address them?

ETA: Warning, I'm also going to just guess at it.
 
Last edited:
The dog that didn't bark in the night:

Possibly the most impressive display by anyone in this thread is Ryan Mackey's.

He is more than super-smart; he is wise.
 
alexg said:
Sizzler, I am not an engineer so this is just a laymans guess, but the damaged area (and the heat weakened area above it) was much larger than just one floor, so upon the inital collapse could not several upper floors have been predisposed to fall apart somehwat more easily than the lower?
Click to expand...

I can imagine this being a possibility if it were just a couple of floors

But is it realistic to believe that many more floors than that were heat weakened?

This is also ignoring that KE (according to Bazant) was 8.1 times greater than needed.

Could heat weakening of numerous floors have over come such an order of magnitude?
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
I can imagine this being a possibility if it were just a couple of floors

But is it realistic to believe that many more floors than that were heat weakened?

This is also ignoring that KE (according to Bazant) was 8.1 times greater than needed.

Could heat weakening of numerous floors have over come such an order of magnitude?
Click to expand...

Well, it looks like a LOT of smoke and damage going up for many floors actually, in that last linked video, and having looked at that last video I am not so sure those lines were drawn correctly. To the eye it looks like the upper does crumble easier than the lower at least at first, but it is so quickly obscured by smoke and debris it is actually hard to draw any conclusions.
 
Sizzler said:
Now that is a lot of floors, either being crushed up, or falling inside the perimeter columns.

If they are falling inside the perimeter columns and thus destroying the upper floors of the lower section, what is keeping the perimeter columns stationary? Their connections would have been destroyed.

It is my opinion that we are seeing crush up, simply because the perimeter of the lower section remains intact.

I'm sorry, but this is in direct violation of Bazant's "theory".
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but these pictures were created by someone intentionally trying to mislead others.

The red lines do not denote the top section. The collapse started significantly above the bottom red line in the first picture. Check the video. The top section is the part that moves. This is always true, regardless of whether there is crush-up or crush-down. The floors above the bottom red line are not seen to move before they disappear behind debris, so they cannot be a part of the falling top section that is allegedly being crushed at the bottom red line. Please make an effort to understand this. It's rather simple.

The bottom red line in the second picture shows roughly where the bottom of the top section would be if there was no crush-up. The bottom red line in the third picture does not seem to show anything relevant at all.

If you believe that the red lines denote the area where the top section is being crushed-up, please think about this again. If that was the case, the bottom red line would be the place of initial destruction; floors just above the bottom red line would have to be seen moving down along with the top of the building and would be the first to be crushed. The destruction would not start above them and move down to them. Please make an effort to understand this.
 
Pardalis said:
Is that all?

Can you see through smoke and dust?
Click to expand...

Perimeter corner columns on the right are neither cover by smoke for the top or the bottom.

A slowed down version is better, but I can still see crush up before crush down.

Put a sticky note on the roof of the building and a sticky note at the bottom of impact region. Move the sticky notes to the right corner columns. Play the video, and you will see it.
 
Thabiguy said:
I'm sorry, but these pictures were created by someone intentionally trying to mislead others.

The red lines do not denote the top section. The collapse started significantly above the bottom red line in the first picture. Check the video. The top section is the part that moves. This is always true, regardless of whether there is crush-up or crush-down. The floors above the bottom red line are not seen to move before they disappear behind debris, so they cannot be a part of the falling top section that is allegedly being crushed at the bottom red line. Please make an effort to understand this. It's rather simple.

The bottom red line in the second picture shows roughly where the bottom of the top section would be if there was no crush-up. The bottom red line in the third picture does not seem to show anything relevant at all.

If you believe that the red lines denote the area where the top section is being crushed-up, please think about this again. If that was the case, the bottom red line would be the place of initial destruction; floors just above the bottom red line would have to be seen moving down along with the top of the building and would be the first to be crushed. The destruction would not start above them and move down to them. Please make an effort to understand this.
Click to expand...

With or without lines, I see the same thing in slowed down videos.
 
Sizzler said:
Put a sticky note on the roof of the building and a sticky note at the bottom of impact region. Move the sticky notes to the right corner columns. Play the video, and you will see it.
Click to expand...
Man, I love engineering. Who needs equations and formulas.

Sticky notes, technology of champions.
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
Man, I love engineering. Who needs equations and formulas.

Sticky notes, technology of champions.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, didn't Bazant make measurements from large computer screens?

It has become obvious that no one is willing to address this issue.

Surely someone here sees what I see.
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
With or without lines, I see the same thing in slowed down videos.
Click to expand...
Are you saying you see the floors just above the bottom red line move down and be the first floors to be crushed when they reach the bottom red line?

If you are saying something else, then please read again what I have written and make another effort to understand it.
 
Sizzler said:
Perimeter corner columns on the right are neither cover by smoke for the top or the bottom.
Click to expand...


I must be hallucinating, but I do see a dust cloud progressively going down as the building falls, including on the right side.
 
Sizzler said:
If I remember correctly, didn't Bazant make measurements from large computer screens?

It has become obvious that no one is willing to address this issue.

Surely someone here sees what I see.
Click to expand...

You do realize that it is a mathematical model. They have to be able to actually SOLVE the equation they set up in order to have a conclusion. The equations they derived and then solved are already complex enough that there's a chance that there is no analytical solution (you do understand what I'm saying, right?).

The simplified the problem. The amount of crush up of the upper block at the beginning of the collapse is small, thus it is mathematically expedient to neglect it. They didn't do it to pull the wool over anyones eyes. Do you get why it is important to make mathematical models simple?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom