• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

David Chandler jumps the shark

DGM said:
Where does he misrepresent your blatant attempt to sell a "model" where you ignore gravity?

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I assumed you thought the towers were lying horizontal on a friction-less earth........hell, no one can ignore gravity...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Let's ask this question... does the verinage technique ignore gravity? Why does it work?

I'm not ignoring gravity, I'm noting that it has been in play all along, and the strength of the construction already overcame the force of g on those members. You folks want to instantly liberate PE for an entire floor (my definition here, not yours) without accounting for the KE required to do so and the consequential loss in v, which reduces p for the falling mass. There is no build up in m from new floor compaction because the floor is crushed on an axis which already carried it, so what you get is a net depleting KE.

Just to play devil's advocate, let's say your falling mass did somehow manage to bypass all of the structural members who had worked against g, and you did liberate a (your definition here) - "floor". In that scenario all of those bypassed static structural members would have destroyed the falling block like stakes through the heart of a falling vampire. It would have been broken to bits and the structural lattice would have nested into a reciprocal version of itself below it.
 
Last edited:
Ok, take a there foot long dowel , balance it on your head straight up, put a 3/4 inch steel nut on top of it. No problem at all, no pain as you easily can take the few ounces of weight. Now have someone move the nut just till it goes over the edge of the dowel and falls on your head.
Does it hurt? Why? You had none before.
 
Notconvinced said:
My God Man!

It was a reference to your own conclusion.... 42, the answer to everything.

http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Mice
Click to expand...

Ok
Mice not rats. I should have known something was amiss when that mattress rambled across the landscape.

You Explained that and I understand.

Now try it with your description of KE, mass and momentum wrt your previous unintelligible statements.
 
Last edited:
Notconvinced said:
Just to play devil's advocate, let's say your falling mass did somehow manage to bypass all of the structural members who had worked against g, and you did liberate a (your definition here) - "floor". In that scenario all of those bypassed static structural members would have destroyed the falling block like stakes through the heart of a falling vampire. It would have been broken to bits and the structural lattice would have nested into a reciprocal version of itself below it.
Click to expand...

Already addressed.
jaydeehess said:
As for actual load bearing structure:
Initial collapse occurs, the gif of this event for WTC2 that ozeco posted several times illustrates that the upper block has rotated about its CoG. The column sections of that upper block simply cannot line up to direct impact forces as an axial load on the lower section columns. Therefore ALL of the moving mass of that upper section will hit the floor span. The floor span was connected to the columns by components designed to transfer the normal loading on ONE floor space. The dynamic loading of the entire upper section is orders of magnitude greater than those components were designed to handle.

The connections fail having slowed the upper block about as much as a Styrofoam cup slows your foot as you stomp on it. The falling mass, now joined by the concrete floor span that has been trashed and the contents of that floor space, continues on, gaining more velocity until it hits the next floor span.
Perimeter column sections peel away with no lateral support(originally supplied by the now missing flora trusses).
Core columns lose lateral support through floor trusses to perimeter and much of the intercolumn beams. Columns now succumb to slender column instability and buckle.

Clear now?
Click to expand...

Even if broken up do you really suppose that a floor span could carry the mass of ten+ floor spaces ?

Lower section columns spiking upper section floor spans. Ok you understand the upper section columns are also spearing through the lower section floor spans like a stake in a vampire heart?

Here's a thought experiment. Let's say an M1A1 tank was assembled on the 78th floor. Then a trap door under it release and the tank drops onto the 77th floor. Assuming it smashes through the 77th, will it stop before it gets to ground level(or basement)
 
Last edited:
Another thought experiment:
In the pristine building on Sept 10, 2001 all furnishings, office and building support equipment, internal pipes and fixtures, and staff were removed from every floor above the 98th and stacked on the 98th floor. Going to be a bit tight but let's let the people move and mingle about on the 98th as well.

Can this be accomplished without the 98th floor span breaking loose from its connections to the core and perimeter columns? 12 times normal loading.

If so what if we also disassemble the core columns and hat truss above 98 and stack them on the 98th?(toss perimeter columns off the side)

There is little to no dynamic impact going on and everything is loose unconnected components stacked on the floor.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Already addressed.
Click to expand...
The first time by me was Nov 2007.

003.jpg


and the "stake in a vampire heart" nonsense was also current back then. Given that the impact was a row of those columns there is no way that each column would have penetrated the floor - the needed penetration force far higher than the strength of the joist to column connectors. So the connection(s) would fail before penetration(s) occurred.

My graphic - despite the crude drafting - is correct. It illustrates established progression so some seconds later than the earlier graphic which shows how "ROOSD" started. (It falsifies the long standing debunker side myth that accumulation of floor debris started "ROOSD". Accumulated debris continued it after that initial drop where mutual two way destruction started - both upwards and downwards shearing of floor joists off columns due to concentrated loads imparted by the columns as you have been describing jaydeehess.)
 
ozeco41 said:
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/webpics/ArrowedROOSD.jpg[/qimg]
Dynamic version available but there is enough in the static to prove the point.
Click to expand...

Can you remove some of that thermobaric detonation please, it's sorta obscuring the view.
 
jaydeehess said:
Ok, take a there foot long dowel , balance it on your head straight up, put a 3/4 inch steel nut on top of it. No problem at all, no pain as you easily can take the few ounces of weight. Now have someone move the nut just till it goes over the edge of the dowel and falls on your head.
Does it hurt? Why? You had none before.
Click to expand...

Does the dowel suddenly buckle under it's own weight? Does the nut drive it's way through my skull all the way to my groin? that's debunker physics.... nuts.
 
Notconvinced said:
In that scenario all of those bypassed static structural members would have destroyed the falling block like stakes through the heart of a falling vampire.
Click to expand...
Take care - you got that right in principle - if we forget any inferences from the "vampire" analogy.

That is how the collapses for both WTC1 and WTC2 "transitioned" from the "initiation stage" - the cascade failure which dropped the "Top Block" - into the "progression stage" of three distinct mechanisms led by "ROOSD" which completed the global collapse.
Notconvinced said:
It would have been broken to bits and the structural lattice would have nested into a reciprocal version of itself below it.
Click to expand...

Mutual destruction by Top Block moving downwards AND Lower Tower effectively moving upwards into the underside of the Top Block.

Which bit of reality incidentally falsifies the Bazant "crush down -- crush up" mechanism which did not happen at WTC Twin Towers.

And that is yet another instance of me committing lèse majesté - disagreeing with Bazant. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Notconvinced said:
Does the dowel suddenly buckle under it's own weight? Does the nut drive it's way through my skull all the way to my groin? that's debunker physics.... nuts.
Click to expand...
You think it was supposed to be an analogy for tower collapse? Noooo, it was an illustration of a concept - dynamic load.
Ahh yes by all means don't 'get' the concept being illustrated. You can support a 3/4 inch nut on your head all day every day with no pain at all. Have it drop from three feet up and its a different story.

Moral of the story is that objects in motion transferring momentum to slower or stationary objects impact a force much greater than the simple static force of gravity on their mass.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Moral of the story is that objects in motion transferring momentum to slower or stationary objects impact a force much greater than the simple static force of gravity on their mass.
Click to expand...
In the least case - holding them in contact - no relative motion - then releasing your support so the load is instantaneously applied - it is DOUBLE. Increases rapidly if you drop it - any situation where it impacts with velocity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom