New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis

[rwguinn]

I don't have one year of engineering class. But I do have two pairs of eyes with 27 years of experience.

What Bazant models and what I see are two different things.

NIST states that the upper floor of the lower section had no chance of surviving the initial collapse. But, I think it is fair to say that the video evidence "might" not support this.

I keep thinking about theory and reality.

<<snip silly analogy>>>

For example Bazant uses mass shedding of 20% (right?), but in reality I see a lot more than that falling outside of the footprint.

And how do you judge that >20% of the mass of the building is ejected during the collapse, considering that the 4"thick concrete is internal (and heavy), as are the floor trusses, all the contents (wiring, plumbing and office furniture and supplies).
That's a lot of ejecta.

eagerly awaiting a form of "pulverization", or possibly "Dustification"

 

[CurtC]

I've watched the collapse several times over and over again in slow motion.

I can see that crush up happens before crush down. It is not just one or two floors. It is several floors.

I've watched that too, and to me it looks pretty even, that both the top section and the bottom sections are being destroyed pretty symmetrically. However, I can't fathom why it matters. So could you:

1) Supply links to the videos you see that seem to show the top section holding up better?

2) Explain why you think this matters even if it's true?

Thanks.

 

[Sizzler]

And how do you judge that >20% of the mass of the building is ejected during the collapse, considering that the 4"thick concrete is internal (and heavy), as are the floor trusses, all the contents (wiring, plumbing and office furniture and supplies).
That's a lot of ejecta.

eagerly awaiting a form of "pulverization", or possibly "Dustification"

Again, i am making this judgement based on what I see.

A lot the streamers of dust and material are moving slightly up and out.

I see large columns falling outside of the footprint.

I'm going to go through the pictures of columns stuck in surrounding buildings after the collapse.

Can anyone confirm that none of these are core columns before I search?

 

[Pardalis]

Sizzler, there's something I don't get.

Since you've said you agree that AQ is behind the attacks, what exactly do you think is wrong with the collapse of the towers, what are your doubts leading to?

 

[CurtC]

I see large columns falling outside of the footprint.

I'm going to go through the pictures of columns stuck in surrounding buildings after the collapse.

Can anyone confirm that none of these are core columns before I search?

The columns that fall during the main collapse are all perimeter columns from what I've seen. However, since tall sections of the core (like 50 stories) remained standing for several seconds after the floors collapsed, I wouldn't be surprised to find chunks of those outside the building footprint. Simply finding pictures of a core column in the post-collapse rubble would tell you nothing about when it got there and whether they were ejected during the initial collapses.

On the other hand, either way, the mass of the core columns probably shouldn't be figured into the equations, since they remained standing during the collapse. The mass that we're talking about here is the mass of the floor trusses, the floor concrete, and all the office materials contained on those floors. Not the core columns nor the perimeter columns either.

And since both sets of columns tended to funnel the debris inside the towers, I think that the vast majority of all the floor mass remained inside the towers' footprint during the collapse, ejecting only a comparatively small amount of debris.

In summary:

Perimeter columns: mostly pushed outwards.

Floors and office material: almost all contained.

Core columns: large sections remained standing, then collapsed later.

 

[Reality Believer]

Sizzler, there's something I don't get.

Since you've said you agree that AQ is behind the attacks, what exactly do you think is wrong with the collapse of the towers, what are your doubts leading to?

This is my question to Mr. Sizzler as well. 9 Pages of minutia. Lets talk big picture.

 

[VespaGuy]

Just got caught up in this thread...

Let me get this straight, what we have here is a person with admittedly no engineering background who spent 6 pages having trouble wrapping their head around a concept due to his 'gut feeling', while numerous other folks explained this concept over and over (in a variety of ways) until finally this person had an "aha!' moment and understood the concept.

After all of that - six pages of just not 'getting it' - he now thinks he's found something else that every other expert in the world has somehow overlooked?

 

[Thabiguy]

I've watched the collapse several times over and over again in slow motion.

I can see that crush up happens before crush down. It is not just one or two floors. It is several floors.

I may be wrong or my eyes might be playing tricks.

I do not see this. Maybe you could be more specific about why you think you see this, post pictures with arrows or something.

What I see when I look at "North Tower collapse from north" is a darkened area of several floors with smoke coming out of them. The collapse starts near the top of this area, as indicated by a "puff" of debris suddenly appearing around the building. Everything above this is the "top section". Everything below this is the "bottom section" (including most of the darkened area).

Now, if there is no crush-down, destruction can only occur above this initial level. The area where crushing occurs, if anything, will move slightly upwards as crushed debris piles up. If the area where crushing occurs moves down, below the initial level, crush-down must be occuring.

What I see is consistent with the latter, not with the former.

Can anyone one here confirm that the possibility that crush up happened before crush down is real?

Not from the video I watched. Some crush-up undoubtedly happened simultaneously with the crush-down, but I don't see significant crush-up unaccompanied by crush-down.

 

[Gravy]

One issue I haven't seen resolved is the microspheres.

This of course is assuming Jones is not falsifying his data.

No explanation has satisfied that these spheres are natural for the WTC collapses.

I think this claim can be easily tested and rejected or accepted.

Why hasn't anyone done so?

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:

Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC dust. These products are:

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials

...In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event. Source (PDF)

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?

 

[Pardalis]

I am seeing things that do not match.

Is it that the towers didn't fall the way you would have expected them to have fallen?

Is this what's getting you all worked up?

As Pomeroo has pointed out once, you have to remember that these events were unprecedented. No 100 storey high skyscraper has ever gone down before, so there's nothing for you and me to fall back on to judge how this should have occured.

No, wait. Correction: there was a precedent. The South Tower was the North Tower's precedent. So you do have something to rely on to base your idea. You can compare the two collapses, and you will find that the structures behaved relatively the same way. So in fact, this should lay your doubts to rest as to how exactly these buildings should have gone down. Right?

 

[FactCheck]

The collapse of the top section looks like crush up because the columns of the top section fall behind the lower section perimeter columns.

Look at the columns here:

Note the impact level is already behind the perimeter columns of the lower section. Now follow that all the way down. Of COURSE the perimeter columns of the top section fall behind the bottom section. The evidence is that you do not see any perimeter columns free falling just after the collapse starts. If the perimeter columns were destroyed floor by floor, you would predict the columns that are now not connected to anything would be seen coming from the debris cloud almost instantly. It isn't until the roof falls behind the top section that see perimeter columns fall outside the debris cloud. How could a free falling column be slower that dust? The columns are obviously falling behind the lower perimeter columns and gives the illusion that it is a crush up. The tower is being crushed down from within. Bazant's paper is simplified and only shows that the tower was doomed regardless.

Please review the link below which has all the evidence you need to draw your conclusions.

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

 

[FactCheck]

I'm going to ask everyone to reserve judgement on him here. I've pointed this out to DBB and others. Bazant's illustration is confusing. It does not match the video. They really do need a new illustration.

 

[Gravy]

I cited JOM in reference to the temperatures and intergranular melting.

Again. 1000 degrees C was needed.

No, the paper states that temperatures probably approached 1000 C. "which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel."

Can rubble fires naturally reach 1000 degrees C.

I believe you mean "Could the WTC rubble fires have reached 1000 degrees C.?" See the difference?

Lots more information about this on this page of mine.

 

[Sizzler]

The collapse of the top section looks like crush up because the columns of the top section fall behind the lower section perimeter columns.

Look at the columns here:

[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/sim1.gif[/qimg]

Note the impact level is already behind the perimeter columns of the lower section. Now follow that all the way down. Of COURSE the perimeter columns of the top section fall behind the bottom section. The evidence is that you do not see any perimeter columns free falling just after the collapse starts. If the perimeter columns were destroyed floor by floor, you would predict the columns that are now not connected to anything would be seen coming from the debris cloud almost instantly. It isn't until the roof falls behind the top section that see perimeter columns fall outside the debris cloud. How could a free falling column be slower that dust? The columns are obviously falling behind the lower perimeter columns and gives the illusion that it is a crush up. The tower is being crushed down from within. Bazant's paper is simplified and only shows that the tower was doomed regardless.

Please review the link below which has all the evidence you need to draw your conclusions.

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

Isn't this the south tower?

Are confusing the two ior am I?

 

[beachnut]

Of course it's possible I have calculated incorrectly. You may notice I asked if someone could confirm it. I think you mentioned that you had a spread sheet. Why not calculate it and we can compare?

You did, but who cares? As you try to back in the WTC can not fail due to fire, you will become more of the kind of person you need to be in the 9/11 truth movement group you joined. As you have to know 99.999 percent of all engineers ignore this junk from 9/11 truth; when you finally get what you want, you can take you fantasy Pulitzer Prize in your own mind and lead you 9/11 truth movement into the next decade of ignorance on 9/11. Yes, your representation of weight in the WTC is wrong, but as you said it is only 1 percent here, 1 percent there, as long as you do not have 100 errors; you are close. But then I found your errors to be close to 1 percent off, making your error in that area 50 percent off to 100 percent off. As long as all your small item errors are not this bad, your weight is good, at least it could be 20 to 30 percent close. I watch your first efforts and they were very low. I think you did a great job considering you do not have certified data; the proprietary data from the source.

At least you are not off like some of your fellow 9/11 truth authors; I mean some list the energy of the design impact on the WTC as a 600 mph event, missing it by a lot. The real design was for a slow speed aircraft, so that author you share publication at the journal of woo, is off an order of magnitude! Over 10 times WRONG, so your small errors are in the noise as long as you did not make the same mistake on all your small items that make up the WTC towers. You may be 10 times better than your fellow, http://www.journalof911studies.com/ , journal of 9/11 junk partners. That is good to be the only close to rational author there! That is good, sort of.

How can you keep a straight face publishing a paper at a journal with thermite nut case ideas running amuck?

 

[GregoryUrich]

You did, but who cares? As you try to back in the WTC can not fail due to fire, you will become more of the kind of person you need to be in the 9/11 truth movement group you joined. As you have to know 99.999 percent of all engineers ignore this junk from 9/11 truth; when you finally get what you want, you can take you fantasy Pulitzer Prize in your own mind and lead you 9/11 truth movement into the next decade of ignorance on 9/11. Yes, your representation of weight in the WTC is wrong, but as you said it is only 1 percent here, 1 percent there, as long as you do not have 100 errors; you are close. But then I found your errors to be close to 1 percent off, making your error in that area 50 percent off to 100 percent off. As long as all your small item errors are not this bad, your weight is good, at least it could be 20 to 30 percent close. I watch your first efforts and they were very low. I think you did a great job considering you do not have certified data; the proprietary data from the source.

At least you are not off like some of your fellow 9/11 truth authors; I mean some list the energy of the design impact on the WTC as a 600 mph event, missing it by a lot. The real design was for a slow speed aircraft, so that author you share publication at the journal of woo, is off an order of magnitude! Over 10 times WRONG, so your small errors are in the noise as long as you did not make the same mistake on all your small items that make up the WTC towers. You may be 10 times better than your fellow, http://www.journalof911studies.com/ , journal of 9/11 junk partners. That is good to be the only close to rational author there! That is good, sort of.

How can you keep a straight face publishing a paper at a journal with thermite nut case ideas running amuck?

Where are the errors? Put up or shut up.

 

[FactCheck]

Isn't this the south tower?

Are confusing the two ior am I?

BOTH towers had the same effect. They both tilted pulling the upper face behind the lower perimeter columns. Unless you can tell me how the north tower can pivot at the core yet it's face stays straight on top of the lower columns.

You didn't read the site did you. Because if you did like I asked you would have seen this...

"Below we see the top of the south tower fall behind the perimeter columns at an angle. The top falls behind the perimeter columns and on the floors. (This happened at both buildings as this evidenced by these video screen shots of the north tower.) The angle at which it falls pushes the perimeter columns in front of the falling top section outward, giving them distance."

with a link here: http://www.debunking911.com/wtc1top.htm

 

[pomeroo]

Someone earlier in this thread said the collapse would have accelerated.

Thanks. I have my mind wrapped around a progressive collapse now.

Help me out with this one now though:

When the north tower collapsed, the top section did not crush down initially.

Several floors collapsed on the top part of the building first, and then it started crushing down.

Does this violate progressive collapse?

The initial collapse of the building did not crush the top floor of the lower section. The top floor resisted the collapse crushing the upper section.

Thus initially, the KE of the top section did not cause failure of the upper floor of the lower section. Is the whole point of progressive collapse based on this point; that the floor below the collapsing section cannot resist the collapse?

Would this totally change the findings of Bazant and others?

Why is this totally ignored thus far? How did these papers pass peer review when they obviously ignore a huge observation (ie, the falling section did not cause the upper floor of the lower section to initially fail, it stayed intact and instead several floors from the bottom of the falling section failed. After that the rest failed.)

Someone address this question please.

Thanks.

Just an observation: the Socratic approach worked for Socrates because, despite his protestations to the contrary, he was smarter than the people he was questioning. If his sparring-partners had made him look dumb, Plato would have probably written about someone else.

 

[pomeroo]

Sizzler, there's something I don't get.

Since you've said you agree that AQ is behind the attacks, what exactly do you think is wrong with the collapse of the towers, what are your doubts leading to?

Remember that episode of the "Honeymooners" in which Norton helps Ralph prepare for a quiz show? Ralph's specialty is popular music, and his friend's job is to test him by playing random songs. The funny part is, Norton has to introduce each one with a few bars from "Swanee River."

We may--finally--be reaching the end of "Swanee River" and getting to the actual song. It, too, will be a familiar refrain.

 

[pomeroo]

Again, i am making this judgement based on what I see.

A lot the streamers of dust and material are moving slightly up and out.

I see large columns falling outside of the footprint.

I'm going to go through the pictures of columns stuck in surrounding buildings after the collapse.

Can anyone confirm that none of these are core columns before I search?

Seriously, how many times did you have to cross out the word "squibs"?