New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis

[Sizzler]

So you claim fraud?

That is a strong word.

Lets not forget that other theories of collapse such as "pancaking", have been rejected.

Why can't bazant's new theory be rejected too?

 

[DavidJames]

There is a reason he drew the block intact at the end of the collapse (just before crush up with the ground) in his pictures and ignored the remaining core.

I think the reason is because it would have changed his results.

Your words. You're not saying he made an error, you're saying it was deliberate.

If not fraud, then what?

 

[R.Mackey]

Even if all parts of the block remained inside the footprint, due to deflection and differing masses of the broken pieces, the broken pieces wouldn't have fallen as one mass of many pieces together. Certain pieces would have hit the next floor before others.

Thus this changes the amount of KE initially applied to each floor after the block broke. This would then slow the collapse down and perhaps not cause it to completely collapse.

You're doing pretty good up to here. In fact, restating your words carefully, everything including the above is right.

However, Bazant explicitly treats losses of mass over the side. He therefore also treats the loss of kinetic (and potential) energy associated with those masses.

We can argue about the validity of his mass loss estimate if you like, but as it happens, the equations are not very sensitive to mass loss -- the timing doesn't change much as a function of energy loss (see here for a simplified argument explaining why the collapses are rapid as a rule).

If the mass losses were enormous, it would be possible for the collapses to halt. We're talking > 90% enormous. That's simply not possible. You'd have to translate all that mass -- hundreds of thousands of tons -- an average of fifty feet sideways in a matter of a few seconds. I once worked out the impulse needed to do that, and it works out to many times the thrust of the Space Shuttle. Not going to happen. Pieces are constrained to a vertical fall because there's nowhere else to go, apart from the 10-20% or so that's near the edge to begin with.

There is a reason he drew the block intact at the end of the collapse (just before crush up with the ground) in his pictures and ignored the remaining core.

I think the reason is because it would have changed his results.

You have no basis whatsoever to make such an absurd accusation.

The simple fact is that the upper block can be seen to be moderately intact until it disappears from view in the smoke. At that point, the mass of the upper block is far lower than the mass of rubble it's riding atop. That rubble will suffer the most damage in progressive impacts.

We don't know for sure the upper block survived all the way to the ground, and if it did the surviving core remnants surely pierced it, but who cares? That was after 40+ floors of collapse had already happened. The amount of flying debris at that point defies imagination. No modeling is needed or even interesting so late in the collapses.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Why is it nonsense?

If I drop a bucket with sand in it, the mass is a single unit.

If I drop the sand without the bucket, the mass is not a single unit.

So now you're implying that the building was just a bunch of stacked material that wasn't connected. No welding, no bolts no nothing. Basically a house of cards. The only thing keeping the structure up was the bodies below each part and nothing was interconnected. There were no trusses or supports connecting inner parts to outer parts? No nails or concrete or any such things holding things together.

 

[danielk]

That is a strong word.

You said he didn't use the correct numbers because doing so would have changed his results. In other words, you claim he is wrong and that it was deliberate.

If this wasn't an accusation of fraud, what was it?

ETA: Darn, David James beat me to it.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

That is a strong word.

Lets not forget that other theories of collapse such as "pancaking", have been rejected.

Why can't bazant's new theory be rejected too?

No pancaking wasn't rejected. You need to go back and re-read that claim. While I am not saying you're a twoofer, it's a very VERY common misconception among them. That's in reference to the initiation.

 

[DavidJames]

No pancaking wasn't rejected. You need to go back and re-read that claim. While I am not saying you're a twoofer, it's a very VERY common misconception among them. That's in reference to the initiation.

If fairness to Sizzler, he seems to get all his information from CT sites.

Sometimes being fair is very telling

 

[tsig]

Where are the errors? Put up or shut up.

The arrows are sticking in your feet.

 

[tsig]

LOL

That was actually funny.

With that said, please be nice.

Why? If you want to be stupid why should anyone here put up with you?

 

[tsig]

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?

No one has to prove anything to you.

 

[tsig]

but if it were broken up, the front of the falling part would not bare all of the weight because it wouldnt be a single unit. The entire mass would be realized only when all parts hit the next floor.

And because the falling part is all broken up, what would keep it from staying inside the footprint? Especially when we consider that the core remained and would have deflected falling rubble.

So again, isn't it necessary for the falling part to remain one unit, as described by Bazant?

And how is this possible considering the lower part of the core remained? How could the top part crush down but ignore the core. That top part must be considered as a whole unit so that all the KE can be considered at the front of the falling mass that knocks each floor down.

Do you guys understand?

This is why Bazants model is very troubling to me, in addition to the crush up part I described above.

We understand do you?

 

[Sizzler]

You're doing pretty good up to here. In fact, restating your words carefully, everything including the above is right.

However, Bazant explicitly treats losses of mass over the side. He therefore also treats the loss of kinetic (and potential) energy associated with those masses.

We can argue about the validity of his mass loss estimate if you like, but as it happens, the equations are not very sensitive to mass loss -- the timing doesn't change much as a function of energy loss (see here for a simplified argument explaining why the collapses are rapid as a rule).

If the mass losses were enormous, it would be possible for the collapses to halt. We're talking > 90% enormous. That's simply not possible. You'd have to translate all that mass -- hundreds of thousands of tons -- an average of fifty feet sideways in a matter of a few seconds. I once worked out the impulse needed to do that, and it works out to many times the thrust of the Space Shuttle. Not going to happen. Pieces are constrained to a vertical fall because there's nowhere else to go, apart from the 10-20% or so that's near the edge to begin with.




You have no basis whatsoever to make such an absurd accusation.

The simple fact is that the upper block can be seen to be moderately intact until it disappears from view in the smoke. At that point, the mass of the upper block is far lower than the mass of rubble it's riding atop. That rubble will suffer the most damage in progressive impacts.

We don't know for sure the upper block survived all the way to the ground, and if it did the surviving core remnants surely pierced it, but who cares? That was after 40+ floors of collapse had already happened. The amount of flying debris at that point defies imagination. No modeling is needed or even interesting so late in the collapses.

Thank you. This makes sense to me now.

So if no modeling is needed for the end, why did he draw that picture?

Also, why did the engineers who built the building not consider what would happen if one of the floors collapsed?

Nist said the kenetic energy of 6 floors falling floors was enough to cause global collapse.

Why were these calculations not done before?

And, what about all the other skyscrappers in the world that are designed like the WTC? Have they been upgraded or anything?

How can they be improved now to help this from happening again?

I'm not saying another 9-11 would happen, but perhaps a building fire or earthquake or something like that.

 

[Hokulele]

And, what about all the other skyscrappers in the world that are designed like the WTC? Have they been upgraded or anything?

Please list another skyscraper designed like WTC 1 and 2.

 

[Sizzler]

Sizzler, can you take the test in this thread and (honestly) post you score.

Thanks

Maccy

I will, right now. And post honestly.

I do have a science degree, but I didn't do well in the physics section.

My understanding of physics is limitted I know.

Lets see how well I do on the test.

 

[tsig]

Thank you. This makes sense to me now.

So if no modeling is needed for the end, why did he draw that picture?

Also, why did the engineers who built the building not consider what would happen if one of the floors collapsed?

Nist said the kenetic energy of 6 floors falling floors was enough to cause global collapse.

Why were these calculations not done before?

And, what about all the other skyscrappers in the world that are designed like the WTC? Have they been upgraded or anything?

How can they be improved now to help this from happening again?

I'm not saying another 9-11 would happen, but perhaps a building fire or earthquake or something like that.

The engineers were obviously stupid and did not know the compression force of an I-beam.

 

[Sizzler]

Please list another skyscraper designed like WTC 1 and 2.

Are you implying the design concept is unique to WTC 1/2?

My main question is, why didn't the engineers do these calculations when they were designing the buildings?

I mean, if a single floor collapsed below the 104th floor, the whole building would fall.

Why wouldn't they think about that?

 

[danielk]

Wait, I think even I can answer these, and I got a C the first time I took the test!

So if no modeling is needed for the end, why did he draw that picture?

Overachieving.

Also, why did the engineers who built the building not consider what would happen if one of the floors collapsed?

I'm sure they did.

Nist said the kenetic energy of 6 floors falling floors was enough to cause global collapse.

Why were these calculations not done before?

I'm sure they had been done before, but not specifically for the collapse of the WTC due to airliner impact and fire.

And, what about all the other skyscrappers in the world that are designed like the WTC? Have they been upgraded or anything?

Even if it were possible to design a building which could withstand six stories falling on top of the lower half, how do you propose to upgrade the basic design of a building's structural elements?

How can they be improved now to help this from happening again?

There probably aren't many options, except for better fire containment.

I'm not saying another 9-11 would happen, but perhaps a building fire or earthquake or something like that.

Completely different scenarios. And I wouldn't assume another 9/11 could not happen, even though it's much less likely to happen again.

 

[tsig]

Are you implying the design concept is unique to WTC 1/2?

My main question is, why didn't the engineers do these calculations when they were designing the buildings?

I mean, if a single floor collapsed below the 104th floor, the whole building would fall.

Why wouldn't they think about that?

They did.

Costs too much.

 

[Sizzler]

This thread is dead.

Thanks for all your help guys.

I'm the type of person that does not stop asking questions unless i understand what is happening to a certain degree.

After 11 pages I'm satisfied.

 

[tsig]

This thread is dead.

Thanks for all your help guys.

I'm the type of person that does not stop asking questions unless i understand what is happening to a certain degree.

After 11 pages I'm satisfied.

Do wipe off your hand.