David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

[Profanz]

Today I was watching some news reports about the earthquake in Chile. Yes. There was an earthquake in Chile. Were some of you not off this forum long enough to hear about it?

Anyway they showed some footage of a church tower. The top of which broke off and tumbled into the street. Now maybe I should use this as a comparison to 9/11. I should say that because the top once compromised it should have crushed the rest of the tower below it and destroyed the rest of church as well. But that would be ridiculous.

But then again I am not a debunker. I also won't be bringing up any models of Popsicle sticks or cardboard towers for that matter.

 

[DGM]

In my diagram, I'm showing that all of the columns across floor 97 have failed except for the "hinge" of the perimeter columns on the left. If you could gently lower the top block so there were no dynamic forces involved, then all of the weight of the top block would then be resting on the perimeter columns at the left at floor 97 and the perimeter columns on the right at floor 96. But if those columns could not even support the static weight of the load that would be on them at this point, then there is no reason to think they would decelerate a falling top block, i.e. those perimeter columns on the right would fail without causing any "jolt" to the top block. When they failed, the core columns on the right side of the core would meet the same fate, and so forth across that level. The point is, there would not need to be any "jolt" if there was never any time when the columns below were offering more resistance than the static load of the top block, because only a subset of the columns were being "attacked" at any given instant.

Personally I can't picture any columns lining up and hitting end to end. Why would there be a space in the first place? The columns were being bent out of position, the best you could hope for would be a offset collision (picture 3 hinges).

I think the whole "jolt" argument is an unrealistic argument using Bazant's limiting model as a reality.

 

[Profanz]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for Rule 12.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I think plenty of things can collapse. Especially what some people once considered a career. They thought they knew it all, but then they were just kicked out the door. Now they are unemployed and bitter. Instead of looking for a new job they are much more suited for like... drug dealer, hooker, or one of those guys on the side of the road with the orange vest picking up road kill and garbage, they just troll the internet. All day and all of the night. Seven days a week. 24/7.

And given the tens of thousands of people who would have been involved in rigging the WTC for destruction, the probability that several (or several hundred) are now "unemployed and bitter" is virtually 100%.

It's too bad that this and all the other predictions made by the "inside job" hypotheses just haven't occurred, isn't it"?

 

[walkyrie]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited response to modded post.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for continuation of modded post.

 

[carlitos]

First off, I'd like to congratulate Tony for making a few posts that didn't require editing.

However, Tony, if you are going to spend so much time and effort describing these "jolts," the word you are looking for is "discrete." Not "discreet." An engineer mis-using this term in the context of "the separate discreet impacts" does not inspire confidence.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Personally I can't picture any columns lining up and hitting end to end. Why would there be a space in the first place? The columns were being bent out of position, the best you could hope for would be a offset collision (picture 3 hinges).

Me neither. My only point is that Tony is ignoring a very serious flaw in his argument which prevents him from offering any credible estimate of how much "jolt" should be expected, even if end-to-end contact is assumed.

 

[Profanz]

And given the tens of thousands of people who would have been involved in rigging the WTC for destruction, the probability that several (or several hundred) are now "unemployed and bitter" is virtually 100%.

It's too bad that this and all the other predictions made by the "inside job" hypotheses just haven't occurred, isn't it"?

Yes. That is correct.

tens of thousands of people or 10 religious knuckleheads. It's one or the other according to the debunker skeptical thinkers. That religion is magical, ain't it?

 

[Thunder]

delete

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yes. That is correct.

tens of thousands of people or 10 religious knuckleheads. It's one or the other according to the debunker skeptical thinkers. That religion is magical, ain't it?

There's no other way to rig WTC 1, 2 and 7 and then cover everything back up in the various time frames you people have given us.

 

[BasqueArch]

my underlining

These mini-jolts that femr2 claims to have found are on the order of 1 to 3 ft./second and are only indicative of floor slab collisions, not column impact, and thus insignificant when it comes to explaining the collapse of the lower section of the building.

Wrong.
If the slabs fell 12 feet so did the columns at the same time. You can't have the slabs hitting without the accompanying columns also. The "mini-jolts" then , if such, are all produced during the first 2 seconds when the columns and slabs are hitting. The "mini jolts" if actual ,represent the columns hitting the slabs , the slabs hitting the slabs, and the fractured columns hitting each other tangentially at the sides , the ends bipassing each other due to tilt and as follows:

The columns in WTC 1 would not have missed each other based on the actual motion of the upper section. It appears something was removing most of the strength of the columns.

Wrong again.
At 911freeforum you said you did not know of any forces that would have displaced the columns horizontally , and you were right., you didn’t know what Bazant knew and what was confirmed in the WTC2 collapse videos.

The tilt produces a horizontal thrust of the upper block towards the hinge side, causing additional columns displacement.

Calculated by Bazant, January 2002 Appendix II. Why Didn’t the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base? and Bazant, et al ,2008, What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York.

“However, rotation about a point at the base of the upper part (Fig. 6c) would cause a horizontal reaction approximately 10.3 times greater than the horizontal shear capacity of the story, and the shear capacity must have been exceeded already at the tilt of only 2.8 deg.”

Fig. 4. Scenario of tilting of upper part of building ~South Tower (Bazant)



Video of WTC2 top block displacement towards west wall. Approximate 8 -12 foot horizontal displacement overhang seen before vertical drop At WTC 1 the tilt and mass are less and the displacement proportionately smaller.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Today I was watching some news reports about the earthquake in Chile. Yes. There was an earthquake in Chile. Were some of you not off this forum long enough to hear about it?

Anyway they showed some footage of a church tower. The top of which broke off and tumbled into the street. Now maybe I should use this as a comparison to 9/11. I should say that because the top once compromised it should have crushed the rest of the tower below it and destroyed the rest of church as well. But that would be ridiculous.

If you were to scale a church tower up to the size of the WTC towers, you wouldn't need an earthquake. It would probably collapse under its own weight.

After all, church towers have been around for centuries, but 100-story buildings only a few decades. Care to guess why?

 

[TruthersLie]

You are RIGHT , the strenght of internal 48 SUPER STRONG and EXTRA reinforced core columns of the WTC was REMOVED with remote controlled melting THERMITE/THERMATE charges

It is a very simple question that I have asked you repeatedly.

Can you please (pretty please with a cherry on top) show me or anyone a video of thermite/thermate/melting charges that can be used on VERTICLE columns.

I'd love to see it.

It should be very easy to find and source. I'll wait for it.

 

[TruthersLie]

Yes. That is correct.

tens of thousands of people or 10 religious knuckleheads. It's one or the other according to the debunker skeptical thinkers. That religion is magical, ain't it?

Gee... lets see..

you have 10's of thousands of people involved in the rube goldberg (da JOOOOOS) conspiracy machine of thermite/explosives/holgoraphic planes/remote controlled jets/cruise missles/media cover up/NIST cover up etc....

Or you have under 50 people who are highly motivated armed with boxcutters and folding knives, slicing some people throats and flying huge jets into buildings.

hmmm....
Follow the KISS rule, it is usually correct.

 

[sylvan8798]

We need a new investigation.

You had your new investigation. You did it yourself. You accepted your results. You're done. Bye now.

 

[sylvan8798]

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?

Uh, no, YOU are wrong. Have you ever drawn free body diagrams? This is not that complex an item.

Down is mg, call the force up N. Call up positive and down negative.

If there is no deceleration, then sum of forces = 0. So -mg+N=0, and N = mg.

If there is a deceleration it must be UPWARDS deceleration (because downwards g makes things go faster not slow down). So -mg+N=ma, and

N = ma + mg.

Therefore, if a = g, then N = 2(mg)

which is twice static load.

Don't tell me I'm wrong, Tony. I teach this stuff.

If you ignore this, I will take it as recognition that you were previously incorrect.

 

[JamesB]

Now that I actually bother to read this, it is amazing how amateurish this paper is, even to someone who knows very little about physics. Take this figure from page 5:

Frame # T (sec) y (m) vy (m/s)
216 0.00 82.397
222 0.20 82.399 0.010
228 0.40 82.401 0.010
234 0.60 82.403 -0.562
240 0.80 82.176 -1.708
246 1.00 81.720 -2.665
252 1.20 81.110 -3.400
258 1.40 80.360 -4.520
264 1.60 79.302 -5.860
270 1.80 78.016 -7.165
276 2.00 76.436 -8.485
282 2.20 74.622 -10.005
288 2.40 72.434 -11.505
294 2.60 70.020 -12.648
300 2.80 67.375 -13.968
306 3.00 64.433 -15.285
312 3.20 61.261 -16.240
318 3.40 57.937 -17.358
324 3.60 54.318 -18.300
330 3.80 50.617 -19.443
336 4.00 46.541
Table 1: Video Measurement Data--Frame numbers indicate every 6th frame relative to
the start of the video clip. The frame rate of the video is NTSC standard, 29.97 fps,
yielding a measurement interval of 0.20 s. The y-values are the height of the roof line
relative to an arbitrary origin. Velocities are computed by the symmetric difference
differentiation algorithm.

OK, first off he takes what little precision he has in measuring the vertical and skips every 5 frames, thereby smoothing over any possiblity of observing his "deceleration", but where are they getting these measurements? They are only making 5 measurements per second, but they have 2 decimal points of precision. Then for the vertical, they are measuring pixels on a compressed YouTube video taken from hundreds of meters away from the twin towers, using an unknown camera, yet they claim to have a precision to a thousandth of a meter? They can really measure the collapse to the millimeter?

Then their velocity is also carried out to the thousandth, despite the fact that neither of the measurements that went into it are even precise to one decimal point.

Didn't they teach this kind of thing in 5th grade math?

ETA: Then on page 8 they use this completely false precision and come up with even more false precision:

The slope, in this
context, is the acceleration: -6.31 m/s2 with an R2 value of 0.997.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Uh, no, YOU are wrong. Have you ever drawn free body diagrams? This is not that complex an item.

Down is mg, call the force up N. Call up positive and down negative.

If there is no deceleration, then sum of forces = 0. So -mg+N=0, and N = mg.

If there is a deceleration it must be UPWARDS deceleration (because downwards g makes things go faster not slow down). So -mg+N=ma, and

N = ma + mg.

Therefore, if a = g, then N = 2(mg)

which is twice static load.

Don't tell me I'm wrong, Tony. I teach this stuff.

If you ignore this, I will take it as recognition that you were previously incorrect.

The deceleration of the upper section is indicative of the load it is applying. To apply twice the static load it must decelerate at twice the rate of gravity. To apply three times the static load it must decelerate at three times the rate of gravity, etc. It is that simple, and to say otherwise is nonsense.