New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis

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

If not, can you see the fallacy in your analysis?
Click to expand...

Quite a change of view from your OP, wouldn't you say?

The debunkers here must have really swayed you to the woo-woo train, huh?

Pomeroo, I think the "under" on the page 14 prediction wins...
 
pomeroo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't you have a macro written to do that? Trust me - it makes the responses soooo much easier, especially when their arguments are so doggone similar so much of the time.
 
Stellafane said:
...or maybe they take bets on the over/under for how many pages it takes before the OPer inevitably blows their cover (and cork), commences name-calling, and gets suspended/banned. It's like watching a re-run of Gilligan's Island. You know exactly what's going to happen, but still you watch because it's sort of amusing in a mindless way.
Click to expand...

I just watched for the cleavege.
 
Gravy said:
See, Sizzler, there's where you go wrong. You accept truther nonsense as fact, and claim that the burden of proof to disprove truther nonsense is on everyone else. That's exactly backwards.

Do you understand this? Why do you turn first to people who have no reputation for getting anything right, and in fact who have been repeatedly shown to practice deliberate deception? Shouldn't you insist on high standards?

I asked you to name one significant claim the truthers got right since 2001. You named iron-rich microspheres in the dust. You don't say why this is significant, or why such spheres should not be present in the dust. If you relied on good sources of information, you'd know that such microspheres were expected to be there:Your claim that "No explanation has satisfied that these spheres are natural for the WTC collapses" is rejected, and the burden of proof of foul play remains on the claimant.

Do you see why you shouldn't rely on people who get nothing right for your information? If you were on a tour of mine and everything I said was wrong, you'd want your money back, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...


Not if you said it properly.
 
Sizzler said:
by watching it
Click to expand...
To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi: "Your eyes can decieve you. Don't trust them."

To put it more ordinarily, images can be deceptive. Camera angles and lighting can make a big difference in what one can see. And sometimes things simply don't look like what we think they ought to look like.
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
Like I said early.

I had a hard time wrapping my mind around progressive collapse.

Now I understand the physics.

However the video and picture evidence does not support progressive collapse.
Click to expand...
:eye-poppi Then you don't understand the physics.
 
Gravy said:
:eye-poppi Then you don't understand the physics.
Click to expand...

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)?

Or, would progressive collapse still occur if the upper falling part broke a part into pieces too?
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
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)?

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

You're confusing the model with reality. The upper block broke into many pieces, these pieces never impacted the tops of the columns of the lower block so as to produce a compressive force. They would have always pushed the exterior columns (mostly out). The various pieces would punch through the floor slabs of the upper part of the lower block and again would damage columns much lower than the collapse front.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Mass is mass, regardless of whether it is in one really big piece or a lot of smaller pieces.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Newtons Bit said:
You're confusing the model with reality. The upper block broke into many pieces, these pieces never impacted the tops of the columns of the lower block so as to produce a compressive force. They would have always pushed the exterior columns (mostly out). The various pieces would punch through the floor slabs of the upper part of the lower block and again would damage columns much lower than the collapse front.
Click to expand...

So again, it must be a bad model, because it doesn't fit reality well at all.

Why would Bazant draw those pictures if that event didn't even happen?

If the top part broke a part before it reached the ground, how could it have continued to collapse all the floors. And, even if it did, the KE would be much less, and would thus cause the collapse to occur much slower.
 
Bazant's model is not accurate.


So can anyone provide a better description?
 
The videos indicate that the failure of each of the three major components of the building (exterior columns, floor truss assemblies, and core columns) were independent of each other. While it would be correct to refer to a sequential floor-by-floor failure of the truss assemblies, it would be quite inaccurate to describe a similar sequence for the failure of the core and exterior columns.

Sizzler you argue that because the upper mass was not entirely intact, it lacked the KE to destroy the lower structure, however only the light weight trusses were destroyed in this way - the exterior columns failed due to lateral force and "peeling" and the core columns didn't collapse until after the collapse wave had reached the ground. Therefore the only thing the direct impact KE of the upper mass was required to do was strip the floor trusses from the core. It seems to me that even in a disintegrating state, with a large percentage of its mass falling outside the building footprint, the upper mass would have ample KE to achieve this.

-Gumboot
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
So again, isn't it necessary for the falling part to remain one unit, as described by Bazant?
Click to expand...

No. Its mass doesn't significantly decrease*, the crushing may slow its acceleration slightly (as some of its kinetic energy is dissipated as sound and transformed into heat) but gravity is still accelerating the mass and f=ma. The vast bulk of the mass has nowhere to fall except on the structure below it.

Bazant is simplifying by modelling the mass as one object, but this doesn't mean that thousands of smaller objects falling in the same direction won't behave in fundamentally the same way. Remember, we are mainly talking about comparatively large objects here - the dust is mainly from the drywall. Dropping a small pebble or some gravel should confirm that only very fine particles are likely to significantly affected by air resistance within the distance that the upper block is falling.

Also, even if your crushed floors were magically ejected or floating in the air, there's still a lot of the upper block falling.

I think you are confusing the hardness of a moving object with the kinetic energy it has available to do work.

Air is "softer" than cloth, but that doesn't stop the wind moving a sail.

*I don't see much material being ejected at this point.
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
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.
Click to expand...
Take a 20 lb. piece of lumber and drop it on your foot. Now take a 20 lb. sack of gravel and drop it on your foot. Do you think there'll be much difference in what happens to your foot?
 
Corsair 115 said:
Mass is mass, regardless of whether it is in one really big piece or a lot of smaller pieces.
Click to expand...
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!
Sizzler said:
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)?
Click to expand...
NO! you do not understand physics, you have now flunked! Go back and do it over!
 
Last edited:
So in calculating the KE of the falling mass, does bazant only consider the weight of the floors? Because as some point, if we consider the failure of all three independently, it would have only been the floors knocking floors down. And at this point, wouldn't the collapse have at least slowed down due to changing dynamics of the falling load?
 
Corsair 115 said:
Take a 20 lb. piece of lumber and drop it on your foot. Now take a 20 lb. sack of gravel and drop it on your foot. Do you think there'll be much difference in what happens to your foot?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom