New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis

Thabiguy said:
Where?
If you mean this post,

then no, he did not. He talks about crush-up at the beginning of the collapse, not before crush-down. Please pay attention to this important distinction. Everyone has been saying all along that crush-up can occur at the beginning of the collapse. It is also discussed in Bazant, et al. paper.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that crush up did not occur before crush down?

They occurred at the same time?

(according to your observations)
 
Sizzler said:
Also, such a mathematical model is unrealistic because it doesn't match reality.

Thus how can we use the model to define reality?
Click to expand...
No model will ever match reality perfectly. That's why it's called a model. So the real question is whether the model is sufficiently close to reality to be suitable for the purposes of the study.
 
Pardalis said:
Just to be on the same page, Sizz, what you consider crush up is the part between the black hole and the red line, right?
Click to expand...


Meaning this:

Untditled-1.jpg


If I'm getting this right, you think on the top picture the red line is what is resisting, what you think is over the line is the upper section, when in fact the line in the bottom photo is actually where the top section ends (approximately). Everything under is the lower section.

Am I right?
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
So what you are saying is that crush up did not occur before crush down?

They occurred at the same time?

(according to your observations)
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I see in the video. I see that the place where destruction occurs moves down. This can't happen if there's only crush-up. For this to occur, there must be crush-down. There can also be crush-up at the same time, but there can't be only crush-up.
 
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...

The issue is more that no-one really cares, because the exact sequence of every member that failed doesn't make any difference. The buildings failed where the planes hit them and the buildings then collapsed.

Again, Sizzler, why the hell does any of this matter?

Your posting is very similar to another but I haven't put my finger on who it is yet.

ETA: It might be Lisa but I don't think I've read enough of her postings to have a handle on her style
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere, The connections from the floors are severed but the connections to each other are obviously there because you SEE IT. Like pushing the top of a milk carton inside the mike carton. This isn't a piece of wood. The column trees are vertical ribs which can give and take. The spandrels can rip apart. Others can squeeze together. As the top rips through the interior of the building it pushes out the perimiter columns in large sections. This would be predicted and this is exactly what we see.

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...

This is very important so pay attention...:

If it is crush up, where are the perimeter columns of the top section??? They would have been destroyed and falling at LEAST where the bottom of the top block would have been right??? So we have CLEAR evidence the top mass fell inside the bottom. Unless you think the columns turned to dust... Is that what you think???
 
Pardalis said:
I don't really get that crush up expression. Isn't it just resistance?
Click to expand...
Crush-up refers to the falling top section getting crushed (which happens from the bottom up), as opposed to crush-down, which refers to the standing bottom section getting crushed (which happens from top down). Both must occur at some point before the collapse ends.

According to Bazant's paper, the collapse starts with crush-down, optionally accompanied by some crush-up, but only at the beginning of the collapse. After crush-down ends, crush-up of the top section upon hitting the ground concludes the collapse. The same behavior is also observed in simple (homogenous) models of the tower.
 
Honestly Sizzler, I think you just need to come out with it and admit that you are not going to listen to the facts. It is painfully obvious to me that your mind was made up before even coming in here that you think the towers were a CD, and no matter how much evidence is presented to you you will continue with your own beliefs. Despite what thousands of experts worldwide with years upon years of experience say, you are going to take your ONE year of college and make up your own mind based upon what you want to believe. This is the mindset of a truther. They ignore all of the REAL evidence and pick and choose what they want to believe even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

There have been so many links and posts of literature that explains in great detail what happened on 9/11 in this thread. To understand the basics of what happened to the towers requires no more than a high school education. If you don't have it by now, you are not going to have it at all.
 
Pardalis said:
I don't really get that crush up expression. Isn't it just resistance?
Click to expand...

Since a few floors above the initial failure lines were weakened by the planes and the fires they crushed when they hit the floors below them (crush up), so yes they had less resistance than the undamaged floors.


So is the following an accurate description of why we're still here?

Sizzler will accept 2 or 3 of the weakened upper floors crushing before a bottom floor fails but he sees 5 in the video, so with his extensive engineering experience he decides that all published failure models are incorrect.

Is that that gist of it?

ETA: Great, another engineer with a degree from Youtube!
 
Last edited:
nowwhat.JPG


I superimposed the first photo with the last. Now do you see? If it was crush up then what happened to the perimeter columns of the top section? Why do you see them so late in the collapse? You can just see one perimeter tree peeking out from the dust cloud. Why NO columns from the first impacts under crush up??? That violates the crush up story doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
GT/CS said:
Since a few floors above the initial failure lines were weakened by the planes and the fires they crushed when they hit the floors below them (crush up), so yes they had less resistance than the undamaged floors.


So is the following an accurate description of why we're still here?

Sizzler will accept 2 or 3 of the weakened upper floors crushing before a bottom floor fails but he sees 5 in the video, so with his extensive engineering experience he decides that all published failure models are incorrect.

Is that that gist of it?
Click to expand...

I am still wondering if he is calculating the number of crushed upper floors by using the red line drawn in the picture he linked earlier. The collpase CLEARLY begins many floors above that red line. I asked him if he agrees the collpase starts higher but he simply reiterated that Newton's bit had confirmed 'crush up'. So I'll ask again: Sizzler, do you see that the collapse starts up at the black impact hole and not at the red line drawn in the picture you linked? You were quite insistent we address this picture at first.
 
AZCat said:
Relax, pomeroo - we'll be there soon. Maybe tomorrow, at this rate. Should we send you a wake-up PM?
Click to expand...


Hey, thanks, AZCat. I'm starting to worry that I'm going to forget what I want to say when he announces that it was a CD. I suppose I can find a few identical threads and copy what I wrote.
 
Sizzler, do you believe you have the necessary expertise to calculate the structural requirements necessary to construct the WTC's in the first place? Could you be the chief structural engineer on the construction project? Would you consider Bazant, Sunder or Robertson qualified to be the chief structural engineers on the construction project?

Can they be trusted to explain why they came down?
 
alexg said:
I am still wondering if he is calculating the number of crushed upper floors by using the red line drawn in the picture he linked earlier. The collpase CLEARLY begins many floors above that red line. I asked him if he agrees the collpase starts higher but he simply reiterated that Newton's bit had confirmed 'crush up'. So I'll ask again: Sizzler, do you see that the collapse starts up at the black impact hole and not at the red line drawn in the picture you linked? You were quite insistent we address this picture at first.
Click to expand...

That's true. The bottom of the building is well above Gordos example. The bottom of the top section is about where the debris cloud is lowest.
 
FactCheck said:
[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/nowwhat.JPG[/qimg]

I superimposed the first photo with the last. Now do you see? If it was crush up then what happened to the perimeter columns of the top section? Why do you see them so late in the collapse? You can just see one perimeter tree peeking out from the dust cloud. Why NO columns from the first impacts under crush up??? That violates the crush up story doesn't it?
Click to expand...

The difference of time between each frame is quite small.

As you pointed out, a perimeter column can be seen peaking out.

Where do you think that perimeter column came from?

And where is it in the photo above? Could it be hidden behind the dust cloud?

And, does the building actually get skinnier from bottom to top?

If it doesn't, don't you think it would be a pretty tight fit for the top part to go into the bottom part WITHOUT the bottom part's perimeter columns falling off?

You superimposed the pictures and the bottom of the top part is well below the dust cloud. Shouldn't this be the collapse front? Should'nt perimeter columns be ripping off everytime it crushes a new floor?

If WTC towers get skinnier at the top, I stand corrected.

If not, can you see the fallacy in your analysis?
 
I'm sorry to those I haven't answered to:

I am having a conversation with a lot of people at the same time.

If I bounce back and forth I become overloaded.

I will answer all of you questions in time.

Please be patient. I will address you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom