New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis

[maccy]

Bazant's model is not accurate.

You don't understand the purpose of modelling.

So can anyone provide a better description?

Why should anybody continue to try and explain it to you?

What difference does it make to the world if you are confused by the collapse?

Plenty of people don't understand quantum mechanics, does this make it wrong?

What is your assessment of the collapse anyway? Why are you concerned about Bazant's model?

 

[Sizzler]

This is why a shot gun kills too. Unless you are truther, then the small masses can not kill you. Like a water jet that takes off your skin, it can not take off truthers skin because it is just particles of H2O.

Sorry, but can anyone take physics before they ask too many stupid questions? Like a toddler asking mom why, 9/11 truth believers and those who read their junk ask far too many questions.

JFK Gravy said; Ask not stupid truther questions, learn how to think for yourself!
NO! you do not understand physics, you have now flunked! Go back and do it over!

If it isn't a single unit, how can it have a single unit measurement of KE?

I understand that it might still cause the floors to collapse, but not as fast as Bazant predicted.

This is a fair statement.

If the falling mass is not together, how can the mass of the building be born at its front?

If I pour a 20 pound bag of sand on a scale it will take more time to read "20 pounds" than if I just put that bag on the scale.

Do you get it?

Thus Bazants fall times are incorrect.

 

[Gravy]

Because the KE of the falling part of the building is needed to cause the lower parts of the building to collapse, is it necessary for the top part to remain as a whole, intact unit until it hits the ground (proceeded by crush up like Bazant suggests)?

Of course not.

Or, would progressive collapse still occur if the upper falling part broke a part into pieces too?

Yes.

 

[Sizzler]

You don't understand the purpose of modelling.



Why should anybody continue to try and explain it to you?

What difference does it make to the world if you are confused by the collapse?

Plenty of people don't understand quantum mechanics, does this make it wrong?

What is your assessment of the collapse anyway? Why are you concerned about Bazant's model?

Bazants purpose was to show fall time and full progression are expected.

If the top part breaks to pieces, this changes his model, and thus his fall time.

Thus the fall times do not equal what we really saw in reality.

Thus his model is garbage. It is no better than saying it was hit by laser beams.

 

[maccy]

were there sacks involved in this collapse that kept all the pieces together?

Lets look at your example.

Try it without the sack. That is more accurate.

Do you realise that this answer makes you appear to be ignorant of some very basic principles of physics?

And this, in turn, renders your concerns about the collapse to be rather irrelevant.

If you actually want to learn something, I suggest you drop the stupid arguments and listen to the knowledgeable people posting here.

 

[Sizzler]

Of course not.

Yes.

But not at the same speed. That is my point.

 

[Sizzler]

Do you realise that this answer makes you appear to be ignorant of some very basic principles of physics?

And this, in turn, renders your concerns about the collapse to be rather irrelevant.

If you actually want to learn something, I suggest you drop the stupid arguments and listen to the knowledgeable people posting here.

So what was the sack? What kept all the pieces together such that it could be one unit of weight?

 

[Gravy]

This gravel was not in a container. Therefore the car was not crushed.

Oh, wait...

 

[DavidJames]

Thus his model is garbage. It is no better than saying it was hit by laser beams.

Maybe you should send him some sticky notes.

Okay, I'll sit back let that smart people talk to the Mr. Gut Feel.

 

[beachnut]

my thesis advisor only said there were errors, he never did my work for me

Where are the errors? Put up or shut up.

You missed some, what you call 1 percent stuff, you missed it by 200 percent. No, you are the super 9/11 truth member; you figure it out. I could be off it could be you are only off by 100 percent. I would check the rest of you work but I have the full up model to prove impact, fire, collapse. You have your journal of incompetent fools, you seem to be the only competent one yet on 9/11 issues, you have possible small errors while your peers in 9/11 truth have but lies. You may be the only truth in a house full of false information so far. You are not overtly misleading.
Do not worry about your errors, the most you can be off is 40 to 70 percent on the weight estimate. I mean there could be a few 1 or 2 percent(ers) you missed by 100 to 200 percent. If there are 20 off by 200 percent you are still within 40 percent of your estimate. I think finding you own errors will go far proving to others you are not the dyed in the wool truther that your fellow peers at the journal are. Bravo, to me, you are the best non woo truther yet at the journal, who is a full fledge member of a 9/11 truth group. You are unique so far. When my thesis advisor point out there were errors, he never told me what they were! Go fish.

But be real careful, your truthyness is starting to show as you begin to mislead Sizzler.

 

[Sizzler]

This gravel was not in a container. Therefore the car was not crushed.

[qimg]http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Gravel.jpg[/qimg]

Oh, wait...

the speed of the collapse of the car would be less than if a container were present.

How can you deny this?

 

[R.Mackey]

Maybe you should send him some sticky notes.

Okay, I'll sit back let that smart people talk to the My. Gut Feel.

I've been watching this with a mounting sense of dread... perhaps there's a Sticky Note that indicates where this thread went from "I'm new and I have questions" to "I have all the answers to YOUR questions."

This may sound cruel, but those of us familiar with the science have few to no outstanding questions about the inevitability of total, progressive, vertical collapse in ~ 15 seconds for both WTC 1 and 2. And if we had questions, we'd ask professors and scientists who have looked into the problem. This individual would certainly be well down the list of who to ask, even overlooking his apparent total grasp of the physics from zero in, oh, about 300 posts...

To Sizzler, if you have legitimate questions, feel free to ask. But do not ask questions that are merely veiled assertions. Those are non-starters.

 

[Sizzler]

I've been watching this with a mounting sense of dread... perhaps there's a Sticky Note that indicates where this thread went from "I'm new and I have questions" to "I have all the answers to YOUR questions."

This may sound cruel, but those of us familiar with the science have few to no outstanding questions about the inevitability of total, progressive, vertical collapse in ~ 15 seconds for both WTC 1 and 2. And if we had questions, we'd ask professors and scientists who have looked into the problem. This individual would certainly be well down the list of who to ask, even overlooking his apparent total grasp of the physics from zero in, oh, about 300 posts...

To Sizzler, if you have legitimate questions, feel free to ask. But do not ask questions that are merely veiled assertions. Those are non-starters.

Bazant's model has the falling mass as a single unit. Thus the KE of the falling mass is realized at the front of this mass.

In reality, the upper block would have broken up, this would change the nature of the KE and thus the time of the fall.

Therefore, isn't Bazant's fall time totally wrong?

 

[BenBurch]

Sizzler,

Respectfully, you are straining for the hair on the gnat. We know to an acceptable degree of certainty exactly why and how those towers fell. We know this well enough to be able to absolutely exclude other causes. This event, like most events in history, is only ever going to be known approximately, and you are simply going to have to be content with that. Going further is a waste of everybody's time, including yours.

Sincerely,

-Ben ("Gatekeeper of The Left") Burch
White Rose Society Webmaster
http://www.WhiteRoseSociety.org/

 

[Gravy]

the speed of the collapse of the car would be less than if a container were present.

How can you deny this?

Now you're accusing me of denying something that I never even addressed. My advice: sign up for another physics class. The first one didn't take.

Sorry, sizzler, you are now JAQAIA. Good luck with that.

 

[Hokulele]

the speed of the collapse of the car would be less than if a container were present.

How can you deny this?

Wrong. You are assuming that a container incorporates some kind of pouring mechanism. Sticking with the car for the time being, if the gravel were poured from a dump truck, yes, the collapse time would be shorter. But if the gravel were instantaneously dumped from an overhead bin, a sack is not necessary. This is essentially what happened to the lower floors.


ETA: Gah, how did I get sucked back into this waste of time?

 

[Sizzler]

Sizzler,

Respectfully, you are straining for the hair on the gnat. We know to an acceptable degree of certainty exactly why and how those towers fell. We know this well enough to be able to absolutely exclude other causes. This event, like most events in history, is only ever going to be known approximately, and you are simply going to have to be content with that. Going further is a waste of everybody's time, including yours.

Sincerely,

-Ben ("Gatekeeper of The Left") Burch
White Rose Society Webmaster
http://www.WhiteRoseSociety.org/

I'm sorry but I will not accept that.

Bazant's model may fit for the beginning of the collapse (falling block as a single unit), but it doesn't fit for the entire progression.

If it doesn't fit, his fall times change.

This is not hard to understand.

If Bazant's falling block breaks apart, his fall times change.

 

[Sizzler]

Wrong. You are assuming that a container incorporates some kind of pouring mechanism. Sticking with the car for the time being, if the gravel were poured from a dump truck, yes, the collapse time would be shorter. But if the gravel were instantaneously dumped from an overhead bin, a sack is not necessary. This is essentially what happened to the lower floors.


ETA: Gah, how did I get sucked back into this waste of time?

If the gravel fell IN the container, the car would crush the fastest.

If the gravel is poured or just all dropped at the same time, it would be slower that if it were in a container.

Lets assume for this example that the container has no effective weight.

 

[WildCat]

Ayup....

 

[Jonnyclueless]

were there sacks involved in this collapse that kept all the pieces together?

Lets look at your example.

Try it without the sack. That is more accurate.

Were there sacks involved? Yes. not actual sacks, but the sack in the analogy is the mechanism that keeps the rocks interacting with each other so they operate in some ways as a whole, and in some ways not. Same with the building top. It's not just a solid object, and it's not a million pieces each acting without influence from each other. It's more complex than you are thinking.

but this at least makes it more understandable as to where you are misunderstanding things.