David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

It was not a dynamic event as there was no deceleration. Please explain why you continue to think it was a dynamic event.

 

[beachnut]

It was not a dynamic event as there was no deceleration. Please explain why you continue to think it was a dynamic event.

If there was not deceleration why did the tower not fall at speeds consistent with g? They fell slower. Do you guys do momentum and stuff? Do you use G?

The dumbest part of Davids paper is the part where he says added mass will make the force less; as if F=ma was fictional, as David adds m, the F gets smaller. 911 truth is truly anti-math, and dumber than a box of rocks with the idiotic conclusions you and David make.

Funny as heck! Now we get the 70 percent is 100! Math!

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for Rule 12.

What has made you guys make up stupid junk? What happen? Why are you and David so anti-intellectual when it comes to 911? What is up?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

If there was not deceleration why did the tower not fall at speeds consistent with g? They fell slower. Do you guys do momentum and stuff? Do you use G?

The dumbest part of Davids paper is the part where he says added mass will make the force less; as if F=ma was fictional, as David adds m, the F gets smaller. 911 truth is truly anti-math, and dumber than a box of rocks with the idiotic conclusions you and David make.

Funny as heck! Now we get the 70 percent is 100! Math!

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for Rule 12.

What has made you guys make up stupid junk? What happen? Why are you and David so anti-intellectual when it comes to 911? What is up?

I don't mean to ignore you Beachnut but most of your comments, including these here, are so wrong and ridiculous they aren't even worth replying to.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Please tell me what engineering concepts I am not grasping.

Acceleration^WP:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5535981&postcount=1016

To be fair, you later admitted your definition of acceleration in that post wasn't quite right D), so I'll give another example...

Graphing numerical data:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5549216&postcount=1213

Your history of engineering howlers is so well-established that you're not going to get anywhere by arguing from your personal authority. You'll have to offer a technical argument that holds up under examination by competent people, aka peer review^WP.

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

ROFLMAO.

Hey pot... I've got someone called the kettle on the phone for you.

Please Tony.

Pretty please can you show me your (or any) peer reviewed engineering journal articles which support your claims?

Pretty please?

I'm not asking for you to put out 10,000 pages... but 8 to 20 which is peer reviewed would be fantastic.

 

[JamesB]

It was not a dynamic event as there was no deceleration. Please explain why you continue to think it was a dynamic event.

OK, so if an 18 wheeler semi-truck ran over, say, a box of Richard Gage DVDs, and the truck underwent no measurable deceleration, than that would also be defined as a static event?

And you guys do realize that gravity was acting as a force the entire time, right?

 

[Profanz]

I don't mean to ignore you Beachnut but most of your comments, including these here, are so wrong and ridiculous they aren't even worth replying to.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to modded post.

I think he is just an angry guy.

 

[beachnut]

I don't mean to ignore you Beachnut but most of your comments, including these here, are so wrong and ridiculous they aren't even worth replying to.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to modded post.

Soda? Is drinking coke a problem? no

You and David have failed to make progress in understanding 911 for 8 years, I figured it out on 911. The Passengers on Flight 93 figured it out in Minutes; they hold the record. You and David have been apologizing for terrorists for how long and made zero progress with your lies and delusions of explosives, or is it Jones' thermite as he slips off into insanity blaming the US for the earthquake in Haiti. You and David failed, and you don't have a clue why as you publish your poppycock in a failed physics fired professors Journal of woo.

When will you and David have your super papers in a real journal?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

OK, so if an 18 wheeler semi-truck ran over, say, a box of Richard Gage DVDs, and the truck underwent no measurable deceleration, than that would also be defined as a static event?

And you guys do realize that gravity was acting as a force the entire time, right?

In the case you mention the static load of the truck is far more than sufficient to crush the box. It isn't a dynamic event either.

Many of you guys don't seem to understand what a dynamic event actually is.

There is a need for a dynamic event in the collapse of the towers since the structure below was built to withstand several times the static load above it.

The way a load is amplified is when the deceleration is several times that of gravity. That requires velocity loss, yet there is no velocity loss in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1.

The only way it could happen is if the columns are missed, but that has been analyzed and deemed impossible.

 

[AZCat]

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

Whatever, Tony. It is quite evident that you don't understand dynamics, regardless of your training or experience. That's been apparent since you began posting over at DemocraticUnderground.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Soda? Is drinking coke a problem? no

You and David have failed to make progress in understanding 911 for 8 years, I figured it out on 911. The Passengers on Flight 93 figured it out in Minutes; they hold the record. You and David have been apologizing for terrorists for how long and made zero progress with your lies and delusions of explosives, or is it Jones' thermite as he slips off into insanity blaming the US for the earthquake in Haiti. You and David failed, and you don't have a clue why as you publish your poppycock in a failed physics fired professors Journal of woo.

When will you and David have your super papers in a real journal.

It is sad to say but you are really the one without a clue and are actually unwittingly apologizing for the real terrorists, who planted demolition devices in those three buildings.

There is no chance that the aircraft impacts and fires brought down those buildings and we need a new investigation.

 

[JamesB]

Hey Tony, which do you think would hurt worse, if I placed a 5lb weight on your head, or if I dropped a 1lb weight on your head from 10 feet? Why is that?

 

[beachnut]

It is sad to say but you are really the one without a clue and are actually unwittingly apologizing for the real terrorists, who planted demolition devices in those three buildings.

There is no chance that the aircraft impacts and fires brought down those buildings and we need a new investigation.

No chance you will ever understand 911? You support terrorists by making up lies and failing at physics and engineering. Anyone at you college support your failed ideas on 911?

With impacts 7 to 11 times greater than design, you are wrong again. Fire did it, darn, you missed the first investigations and now you can your failed Jones Kool-aid cult for insane ideas on 911 need another investigation you will not understand. Wow.

I think he is just an angry guy.

You should be angry with your failed education. You also fail at understanding 911, are you zensmack? When will you loan Tony some evidence from your bag of 911 truth delusions?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Please explain why you continue to think it was a dynamic event.

Because static is defined by equilibrium between forces. Net forces are zero, net acceleration is zero, net velocity is zero, because none of thse are changing in the static event.

In the WTC, you had changes in velocity, net acceleration of the upper mass was positive (if you consider the direction of gravity positive). The mass was constantly changing as more floors were destroyed. The momentum increased with the velocity of the mass.

It's quite difficult to see how you're able to contest that while also stating the the net acceleration was less than 9.81 m/s/s. Aside from the treatment of the forces being grossly in error, you're also trying to have things two ways.

 

[JamesB]

The amusing thing is we have been putting up with these idiotic "Free fall" or even "at the speed of gravity" or my favorite "faster than the speed of gravity". Now that they actually bother to measure the collapse and find that it was significantly slower than free fall, they argue that could not have happened either. Apparently the new law of falling bodies is, "things cannot fall".

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Hey Tony, which do you think would hurt worse, if I placed a 5lb weight on your head, or if I dropped a 1lb weight on your head from 10 feet? Why is that?

If the 1lb weight dropped from 10 feet decelerated at a rate greater than 5g upon impact it would apply more force to your head.

You seem to have an intuitive sense that dynamic loads are potentially more damaging, like most people, but do you understand why James?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Because static is defined by equilibrium between forces. Net forces are zero, net acceleration is zero, net velocity is zero, because none of thse are changing in the static event.

In the WTC, you had changes in velocity, net acceleration of the upper mass was positive (if you consider the direction of gravity positive). The mass was constantly changing as more floors were destroyed. The momentum increased with the velocity of the mass.

It's quite difficult to see how you're able to contest that while also stating the the net acceleration was less than 9.81 m/s/s. Aside from the treatment of the forces being grossly in error, you're also trying to have things two ways.

If I put a 100 lb weight on a column which can only withstand a static load of 50 lbs would you call that dynamic loading or would you say it failed due to the static load?

Additionally, in this case there will be some resistance and the weight will not fall at 9.81 m/s/s.

What seems to have happened in the towers is that the strength of the columns below was removed to the point where they could not resist the static load above them.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What seems to have happened in the towers is that the strength of the columns below was removed to the point where they could not resist the static load above them.

That would refer to the collapse initiation only. It's more than sufficiently explained by the uneven redistribution of loads and the reduction in load bearing capacity from the exposure to high temperatures. The combination lead to creeping of the structure that made it unstable. Providing you in fact read the NIST report with out cherrypicking it, this is a pretty straightforward answer. Of coarse I know already you will not be revising your assertion on the fires, so don't even bring it up.

Once the upper mass began moving, all failures of the structure were from very high, localized impact loads AKA dynamic loads. This is what you're apparently... egregiously avoiding.

 

[AZCat]

Additionally, in this case there will be some resistance and the weight will not fall at 9.81 m/s/s.

That's a ridiculous statement given the dearth of information about the column in your example. There are cases where the weight in your example would indeed fall at ~9.8 m/s² after the column failed, and without more information you cannot say what would happen.

 

[beachnut]

If I put a 100 lb weight on a column which can only withstand a static load of 50 lbs would you call that dynamic loading or would you say it failed due to the static load?

Additionally, in this case there will be some resistance and the weight will not fall at 9.81 m/s/s.

What seems to have happened in the towers is that the strength of the columns below was removed to the point where they could not resist the static load above them.

There is reality. And you have your talk of explosives, quiet ones.

What is keeping your explosive paper out of a real journal? When will you guys take action?

With 1000 engineers and nuts at Gage's cult, why can't you do your own studies, most the dolt at Gage's cult signed up? What is the problem?

Why did the towers fall at a rate constant with a momentum transfer, and longer over all? You guys break me up.