David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

[JamesB]

I am still stunned that even a high school physics teacher cannot understand the difference between a static force and a dynamic force. I haven't bothered to read the entire paper, but even the abstract was enough to kill a few brain cells.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to
have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A
downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net
force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the
weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling
block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of
the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper
block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to
crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could
not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper
block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the
disintegration of the lower section of the building.

I am not even sure where to start. If no collapse can have a positive acceleration, and by definition a static system has no velocity at rest, then no collapse could actually ever begin. Therefore, no structure once constructed, could ever actually collapse.

And bizarrely based on his logic, the faster the upper section moves, the less the force it could be imparting on the lower part. It is like some sort of reverse general relativity.

 

[beachnut]

He seems insane, I read the paper, it appears he is insane. He makes unsupported assertions and then makes up a conclusion. He is a paranoid conspiracy theorist who is makes insane claims based on his pathetic paper. There is no substance to critique.

I hope he is not teaching anyone this tripe. How weird. Don't his peers, the idiots at Jone's nothing is too crazy to publish Journal of woo try to have some outside not in 911 truth help before exposing their ignorance? This is a strange cult, and only possible on this large of a scale due to the Internet, where nuts like Jones can run the idiotic Journal of stupid without supervision.

This is the new missing jolt, repackaged, and dumbed down for who? Does Tony know David stole his idea?

It is funny, if he did his model correctly, the velocity of collapse should be close to the velocity of the roof falling. Funny how he debunks himself between the model, and reality. lol, this cool.

David, we have models, and we have reality. To understand how reality is suppose to look compared to your model you have to have no agenda to make up stupid ideas and you have to have experience and more knowledge.

Another self debunking paper by 911 truth, the only movement who has exclusive right to the empty set for their evidence, for 8 years and going strong.


DC, by ignoring gravity makes up his summary ...

The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the collision with the lower section of the building indicates that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward, the upper block, exerted a force less than its own static weight on the lower section of the building.

Yes! That massive object falling faster and faster, will not hurt you because it exerts a force less than its own static weight on you when it hits you! So hang in there, big objects falling are kind of weightless as I learned for David, the physics expert of all time, now moving into delusions, insanity, and fiction.

If a 2000 pound car crushes you, it will not crush you if dropped from 10 feet because the force exerted as it hits you is less then its own static weight. It is in free-fall so it is weightless, no force at all, just use your index finger to push it aside and ....

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for Rule 12.

Once the roof line descends into the debris cloud there is no further evidence even of its continued existence. Whether or not it was completely destroyed early in the collapse is a moot point.

Completely destoryed? Vaporized? gone! Insane! Yes.

A black hole did it... I saw it on Star Trek, it was red matter, or something! ask my grandson, he slept through it.

 

[A W Smith]

http://academicearth.org/lectures/work-and-mechanical-energy

 

[atecom]

I still remember his video where he tried to asser the force of the upper 'block' on the bottom part of the wtc was less while falling than when static.

 

[moorea34]

I still remember his video where he tried to asser the force of the upper 'block' on the bottom part of the wtc was less while falling than when static.

That's the idea of the paper...

 

[Lak]

A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block.

I cannot believe that someone with enough brain function to breathe can write something like this. How retarded do you have to be to write that resistance to impact = weight ?

 

[McHrozni]

His argument seems to be based on the assumption that the WTC towers were monoliths, with no internal structure whatsoever - there were no beams, no columns, no offices, nothing, just two large blocks of matter.
If that were the case, his argument would be reasonable, I think. Unfortunately for him, this is a gross oversimplification, which results in the utterly wrong result.

McHrozni

 

[Grizzly Bear]

His argument seems to be based on the assumption that the WTC towers were monoliths, with no internal structure whatsoever - there were no beams, no columns, no offices, nothing, just two large blocks of matter.
If that were the case, his argument would be reasonable, I think. Unfortunately for him, this is a gross oversimplification, which results in the utterly wrong result.

McHrozni

That and he's doing the same thing Szamboti does ignoring that the .36mg he surmises is a STATIC weight of the building, NOT THE DYNAMIC LOAD.

None of these people are capable of distinguishing the difference, and those that do try to twist some excuse to say it wasn't there. Chandler won't accept criticism of any kind so I guess he stays wrong.

Not surprising...

 

[Lak]

His argument seems to be based on the assumption that the WTC towers were monoliths, with no internal structure whatsoever - there were no beams, no columns, no offices, nothing, just two large blocks of matter.
If that were the case, his argument would be reasonable, I think. Unfortunately for him, this is a gross oversimplification, which results in the utterly wrong result.

McHrozni

Not really. Assuming that the resistance is proportional to mass in that case would make sense (I think), but equal... No way.

How much something weights is unrelated to how firmly it holds together.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That and he's doing the same thing Szamboti does ignoring that the .36mg he surmises is a STATIC weight of the building, NOT THE DYNAMIC LOAD.

None of these people are capable of distinguishing the difference, and those that do try to twist some excuse to say it wasn't there. Chandler won't accept criticism of any kind so I guess he stays wrong.

Not surprising...

The static load is 1mg in case you aren't aware, and the building was designed to resist at least 3mg.

Nobody ignores the resistance of 0.36mg. It is just that this shows the load purported to be destroying the building is well below even the insufficient static load. It is not dynamic in any sense of the word and your post here doesn't make sense.

 

[AZCat]

Nobody ignores the resistance of 0.36mg. It is just that this shows the load is well below even the insufficient static load. It is not dynamic in any sense of the word and your post here is utter nonsense.

Well, then.

I guess that just goes to show us exactly how well you've absorbed engineering concepts over the years.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, then.

I guess that just goes to show us exactly how well you've absorbed engineering concepts over the years.

Everytime I see one of your posts I am reminded of the saying "where's the beef?". You apparently have nothing to say but nonsense and ad hominem.

 

[AZCat]

Everytime I see one of your posts I am reminded of the saying "where's the beef?". You apparently have nothing to say but nonsense and ad hominem.

Considering that arguing with you became pointless years ago when you repeatedly proved you couldn't grasp simple engineering concepts, why would you expect me to argue about details that depend on those same concepts?

You might want to learn what an ad hominem argument is before accusing me of making one (not that I expect you to do so).

 

[McHrozni]

Not really. Assuming that the resistance is proportional to mass in that case would make sense (I think), but equal... No way.

How much something weights is unrelated to how firmly it holds together.

Hm, yeah, point. Although if you have two objects, which are different in size, but otherwise identical, weight would be an unrelated indicator which would sustain more punishment. I think this is where the claim that the weight is so important originates from. It's a gross mistake, of course, but I find it interesting to try to find out where their 'arguments' originate.

McHrozni

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Considering that arguing with you became pointless years ago when you repeatedly proved you couldn't grasp simple engineering concepts, why would you expect me to argue about details that depend on those same concepts?

You might want to learn what an ad hominem argument is before accusing me of making one (not that I expect you to do so).

Please tell me what engineering concepts I am not grasping.

 

[AZCat]

Please tell me what engineering concepts I am not grasping.

I already did (see upthread).

 

[Profanz]

The static load is 1mg in case you aren't aware, and the building was designed to resist at least 3mg.

Nobody ignores the resistance of 0.36mg. It is just that this shows the load purported to be destroying the building is well below even the insufficient static load. It is not dynamic in any sense of the word and your post here doesn't make sense.

That's right.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I already did (see upthread).

You have done nothing of the sort. Your lack of detail shows you are only masquerading as though you know something.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The static load is 1mg in case you aren't aware, and the building was designed to resist at least 3mg.

All Chandler did was split the weight of the building. It would be accurate providing that the masses were in static equilibrium. But in case it hasn't registered, the upper mass was in motion, gaining momentum once the columns failed. I fail to see how that is a competent assessment of the forces involved. It's not a static event even under your most optimistic assumptions.

 

[beachnut]

Everytime I see one of your posts I am reminded of the saying "where's the beef?". You apparently have nothing to say but nonsense and ad hominem.

Poor David, at least he has you to support his delusions of a real-cd-deal! Great job of not understanding 911 for 8 years. What is next? I bet you are a JFK CTer too.

What does your school think of your paper and now the rehash by David? What journal besides the nut case woo Journal will David be published in?

I did not expect you to find the errors in Davids paper where he debunks himself, as you did. Why are you guys unable to get anything in a real journal? Paranoid much? Do you guys try to understand physics, or are you messing up to support some political agenda. Bush is not in office, are you guys anti-Obama too. Your paper and David's paper sound like a thing McVeigh would do if he were a failed physics teacher, and an engineer with real-cd-deal delusions.

Using the old high resolution video scam again, this time with David. Can't beleive he was a physics teacher.

That's right.

Look you have support from another delusion pusher who can't define his evidence or much of anything about 911. Good job, you have the zensmack clone supporting your crazy explosives did it lie made up by murdering science. Why are you making up lies to apologize for terrorists?