David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

JamesB said:
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".
Click to expand...
Chandler's problem is he's looking at the net acceleration and then directly translating that to the weight. Impact loading isn't calculated that way. Weight is one thing, instantaneous loading is another.

TS seems to know this but nevertheless chooses to give the same treatment to his model. As to why it doesn't significantly decelerate or stop; in a normal column you try to give the load a direct path to the ground, the upper mass of the WTC was rotating adding HUGE out of plane forces to columns at the collapse inferface. These columns were designed to add stability and resist distributed wind loads, not a giant piece of damn tower tipping over on it.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The impulse itself is too short in duration to see in video of 30 frames/second. However, the velocity loss is observable.

What we did in the Missing Jolt paper was calculate the column energy dissipation due to their elastic and plastic deformation and buckling and looked for the correlatable loss of kinetic energy and velocity loss. It wasn't there.
Click to expand...
The highlighted sentence is false.

Tony's own data show the velocity loss he had calculated, to within quantization error. The graphs in Tony's paper are not consistent with Tony's numerical data, and Tony has been using his bogus graphs to deny the loss of velocity.

That Tony continues to deny these facts says something about Tony, but nothing about what happened on 11 September 2001.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
The highlighted sentence is false.

Tony's own data show the velocity loss he had calculated, to within quantization error. The graphs in Tony's paper are not consistent with Tony's numerical data, and Tony has been using his bogus graphs to deny the loss of velocity.

That Tony continues to deny these facts says something about Tony, but nothing about what happened on 11 September 2001.
Click to expand...

The numerical data in the Missing Jolt paper does not show a velocity loss at any time. Take a look at the table on page 8 here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf and show me where in the third column there is a velocity loss. The velocity is always increasing with time. How you can say otherwise is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
If the upper block only decelerates at 1g then the force applied is equal to the static load. If it decelerates at less than 1g then the force applied is less than the static load. Remember F = ma.
Click to expand...

Sure. Let's say it needs to decelerate at 3g in order to overcome the resistance of the lower block. How long do you think the lower columns would hold up if the upper block decelerated at, say 30g, exerting a force ten times beyond what the impacted floor could hope to survive?

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
Sure. Let's say it needs to decelerate at 3g in order to overcome the resistance of the lower block. How long do you think the lower columns would hold up if the upper block decelerated at, say 30g, exerting a force ten times beyond what the impacted floor could hope to survive?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

I would certainly say the columns would fail with the deceleration produced overload you mention. But again the only type of load amplification mechanism available (deceleration due to impact) requires velocity loss which is not observed.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I would certainly say the columns would fail with the deceleration produced overload you mention. But again the only type of load amplification mechanism available (deceleration due to impact) requires velocity loss which is not observed.
Click to expand...

Correct. Now, assuming such an impact would take 0.001s, whereas you're sampling only every 0.05s. The deceleration will take place, but since the upper block will accelerate more in the 0.049s than it will decelerate in the 0.001s, you'll register only a decrease in deceleration in one data point - which is exactly what the data you have shows.

Feel free to try to correct me if you think I'm wrong :rolleyes:

McHrozni
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If the upper block only decelerates at 1g then the force applied is equal to the static load. If it decelerates at less than 1g then the force applied is less than the static load. Remember F = ma.

In order to get an amplification the deceleration needs to be greater than 1g.

If the deceleration were 2g then the force applied would be twice the static load.
Click to expand...

No. If the upper block has no acceleration/deceleration, then the force applied is equal to mg (a load equivalent to the static load). Draw a free body diagram. Any deceleration of the upper block means the force applied is greater than the static load.
 
AZCat said:
No. If the upper block has no acceleration/deceleration, then the force applied is equal to mg (a load equivalent to the static load). Draw a free body diagram. Any deceleration of the upper block means the force applied is greater than the static load.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

If the deceleration is just g then the force is F = mg and the same as the static load. To get an amplification to twice the static load you need F = m x 2g.

It sounds like you are confused about what is happening at rest. Why is the static load equal to mg?
 
Last edited:
Again, without getting dragged into the wider conversation, we've developed tracing techniques that allow for much higher fidelity graphing of the Sauret footage to be performed...
378476413.jpg

Original Size

Graph axis units are ft and seconds, and apply to the smooth position curve.

The other line is a 9-sample symmetric difference velocity graph, correctly synched along the time axis, but with arbitary vertical axis.

Very similar results have been presented by another user, with both showing the early velocity loss.

Am not going to get into discussion of the missing jolt here, but simply present these clear *mini jolts* to clarify that increasing the trace quality does show additional detail.
 
JamesB said:
Ouch, whip, meet rented mule.
Click to expand...

Now you guys are trying to get creative and twist things around with no basis in reality.

I guess you need to when you don't have an argument.

I think I have answered your original post here James and shown that what you are saying there is not applicable to the issue. Better luck next time.
 
femr2 said:
Again, without getting dragged into the wider conversation, we've developed tracing techniques that allow for much higher fidelity graphing of the Sauret footage to be performed...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/378476413.jpg[/qimg]
Original Size

Graph axis units are ft and seconds, and apply to the smooth position curve.

The other line is a 9-sample symmetric difference velocity graph, correctly synched along the time axis, but with arbitary vertical axis.

Very similar results have been presented by another user, with both showing the early velocity loss.

Am not going to get into discussion of the missing jolt here, but simply present these clear *mini jolts* to clarify that increasing the trace quality does show additional detail.
Click to expand...

These alleged mini-jolts are only indicative of floor collisions due to conservation of momentum and do not account for column strikes.

You really should give it up femr.
 
Actually, unless I am missing something, this paper says absolutely nothing about the precision of his observations or measurements. That type of thing is not allowed even in economics or finance papers, which aren't even real science. Epic fail.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You are wrong.

If the deceleration is just g then the force is F = mg and the same as the static load. To get an amplification to twice the static load you need F = m x 2g.

It sounds like you are confused about what is happening at rest. Why is the static load equal to mg?
Click to expand...

No Tony, you are wrong and this is why there is no point in discussing engineering issues with you. If you can't draw a free body diagram and see where you have misunderstood a very simple physics problem then you aren't competent at engineering. At rest, the sum of the forces on the upper block is zero, because the gravitational force (of magnitude F=mg) acting on the upper block is offset by a force from the lower block of the same magnitude, but in the opposite direction. If the upper block is moving at some velocity but the acceleration/deceleration is zero, then the gravitational force (of magnitude F=mg) acting on the upper block is offset by a force from the lower block of the same magnitude, but in the opposite direction. This opposing force is F=mg. In order to produce a deceleration in the upper block, the force from the lower block must be greater than mg.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
These alleged mini-jolts are only indicative of floor collisions due to conservation of momentum and do not account for column strikes.

You really should give it up femr.
Click to expand...

Give up what exactly, Tony ?

The purpose of including the graph is to show that much higher fidelity graphing is possible. It doesn't change the premise of your personal opinion, but it certainly clarifies all points about data resolution.

Am not going to get into discussion of whether there should or should not be a jolt Tony, but at the very least you should appreciate that the higher resolution data actually gives you more information than your lower fidelity base data. The large magnitude velocity change you expect is not there. Several other smaller ones are.

You can choose to use the data to attempt to support your argument, or you can choose to attempt to throw the better data away, because it shows additional details that need further explanation.

Choice is yours.
 
Tony edited his post after I had begun my previous response. Here is Tony's edited post:
Tony Szamboti said:
The numerical data in the Missing Jolt paper does not show a velocity loss at any time. Take a look at the table on page 8 here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf and show me where in the third column there is a velocity loss. The velocity is always increasing with time. How you can say otherwise is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Because I can add, subtract, and multiply.

Your paper exists in at least two versions, both of which identify themselves as "Journal of 911 Studies, January 2009/Volume 24":

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

I have been using the first of those two versions, which appears to have been the version that was originally published in the "journal"; at any rate, it is the version found by Google Scholar. The second version appears to be a subsequent revision, since it has had a "7" appended to its name. When we are dealing with this kind of "journal", I guess we have to expect that kind of chicanery.

Here is the relevant part of your figure from page 8 of TheMissingJolt7.pdf:

1.3334 20.24 31.68
1.5000 25.52 36.96
1.6667 32.56 39.59
1.8334 38.72 39.60
2.0000 45.76 44.88

That table was computed using "symmetric differencing", which has the effect of smoothing the data while halving its resolution to 1/3 second. The earlier version of your paper, which was the one I was reading, did not use symmetric differencing. If we use ordinary differencing, which preserves the 1/6-second resolution of your numerical data, we get the following table:

1.3334 20.24 ------
1.5000 25.52 31.68
1.6667 32.56 42.24
1.8334 38.72 36.96 note drop in velocity here!!!!!2.0000 45.76 42.24

Your figure 4 on page 9 of TheMissingJolt7.pdf appears to use velocities calculated by simple differencing, and shows the actual deceleration from 1.67 to 1.83 seconds, although your graph is not as clear as mine. The graphs in the earlier version of the paper were different, and appear to be entirely bogus.

More importantly, my graph displays the velocity loss (delta-V) correctly. My dashed line shows your expected loss of velocity (delta-V) followed by the 1g acceleration that would (as implied by your model) follow immediately upon the large jolt you were expecting. Your dashed line shows your expected loss of velocity (delta-V) followed by the 70% average acceleration observed in your data; in other words, your dashed line counts the expected resistance twice: once to produce your sudden jolt, and again to slow the acceleration to 0.7g.

That mistake of yours had the effect of doubling the magnitude of the effect you have been carrying on about. It should surprise no one that your 2x factor was not observed, because the 2x factor was nothing more than your mistake. What surprised me is that the 1x factor you had calculated really is observed in your data (to within quantization error) when the data are graphed honestly and competently.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5544701#post5544701
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5549216&postcount=1213
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
These alleged mini-jolts are only indicative of floor collisions due to conservation of momentum and do not account for column strikes.

You really should give it up femr.
Click to expand...

Tony, your analysis and arguments would have a lot more impact and credence (pun intended) if you were to get them published in a mainstream engineering journal.

Let's just posit, for arguments sake, that your ideas are correct. This could be easily verified by your peers around the world via a peer-review process, and then your movement could take them to scientific bodies and argue that a new investigation was needed.

Having failed to do this, your cries for an investigation carry little scientific weight.

I don't see why you have to be so dismissive of femr2's chart, as it provides more details with which to apply to your models. I say congrats to femr2 for the due diligence.

I'm firmly with the others on this thread who see you and Chandler trying to argue 2 contradicting positions at once: On the one hand, acceleration at 1g would indicate zero resistence, indicating that structure had been artificially removed; on the other the fact that there was indeed resistance is used to argue that structure was artificially removed.

Richard Gage prefers to muddy the waters with the term 'near freefall', which is actually closer to 'near 1/2 freefall'.

You will have to stop contradicting yourselves if you want to be taken seriously by the engineering community.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hi, Tony, welcome back. I was wondering if you had given any more thought to this question: If the diagram below were a static situation, how much of the weight of the upper block would be resting on the perimeter columns at the right:

wtc1tilt.jpg


You gave one answer -- about a 7% increase because of the displaced center of mass -- but when I asked what happened to the load that was carried by those failed columns across floor 97, I don't believe you answered. Of course, the point is: If the the tilt meant that the load of the upper block was no longer distributed evenly across all the columns, how much "load amplification" would really be necessary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom