David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

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:



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:

You can moan and groan all you want James, but the reality is that the upper section of WTC 1 did not decelerate. This means it could not have applied a dynamic load and something else must have been removing the strength of the columns below, as they were designed to support several times the load above them.

The tilt has also been shown to be irrelevant here as it has been measured and shown not to cause the columns to miss. The tilt is quite small in comparison to the drop for the first several stories. Take a look at the work being done over at the 911freeforum on this http://the911forum.freeforums.org/missing-jolts-found-film-at-11-t222-360.html.

It looks like there is a very serious problem for the present official story on how WTC 1 collapsed, as the explanations put forth by the NIST and Dr. Bazant require a dynamic load to cause a collapse propagation. Well there isn't one.
 
Last edited:
........and something else must have been removing the strength of the columns below, as they were designed to support several times the load above them.

.


The people start to see what really happened on 911 at the World Trade Center , the 48 internal Super Strong and Extra reinforced Core Columns of the WTC were Artificially removed using radio Controlled THERMITE/THERMATE melting Charges , unavoidable , UNSTOPPABLE , the TRUTH is coming out



/
 
Last edited:
Ahem. Can you at least explain why you're ignoring this part?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5664472&postcount=67

It's just what everyone else is telling you, in a way anyone with the capacity to type should understand.

McHrozni

First, any impulse in a collision between floors in the towers of just 1 millisecond would be indicative of a deceleration of about 500g's. So your math is not right here.

An impulse capable of breaking up the lower structure would probably be in the 6g and 90 to 100 millisecond range.

We are actually measuring every sixth frame or 167 milliseconds not .05 seconds or 50 milliseconds as you state.

However, nobody is trying to measure the impulse. During the impulse kinetic energy is transferred and velocity is lost. It is the velocity loss that is looked for, which would indicate an impulse had taken place, and it takes time for the lost velocity to be recovered to what it was pre-impact. In the case of the towers this recovery to pre-impact velocity would have taken about 800 milliseconds, during which several measurements could be made. These measurements show no velocity loss occurred indicating there was no impulsive load.
 
Last edited:
However, nobody is trying to measure the impulse. During the impulse kinetic energy is transferred and velocity is lost. It is the velocity loss that is looked for, which would indicate an impulse had taken place, and it takes time for the lost velocity to be recovered to what it was pre-impact. In the case of the towers this recovery to pre-impact velocity would have taken about 800 milliseconds, during which several measurements could be made. These measurements show no velocity loss occurred indicating there was no impulsive load.
The issue is that the loads aren't transferred in their totality before the structure snaps. The floors very likely gave out long before reaching an 8g impact load, especially since it wasn't a uniformly distributed impact and they were never intend to act as support elements for the building other than bracing and floor space. Same for columns right at the collapse interface especially if the loads were out of plane (which they were when they buckled in the impact region).

And Contrary to what you're indicating the tilt is very important. This stands independently of what you think the timing of it was. If you've worked with any basic structures problem you know full well the load path is extremely important wrt the column's capacity to hold as much as its cross-sectional area.
 
Last edited:
My bold
<snip>

The tilt has also been shown to be irrelevant here as it has been measured and shown not to cause the columns to miss. The tilt is quite small in comparison to the drop for the first several stories. Take a look at the work being done over at the 911freeforum on this http://the911forum.freeforums.org/missing-jolts-found-film-at-11-t222-360.html.

snip>



Still Wrong.
The tilt is one component of the miss, the other factor:

The tilt in x and y axes produces a significant horizontal thrust of the upper block towards the hinge side, causing significant additional columns displacement in both the x and y axes. How much? See the WTC2 video below. No possible obfuscation behind babblemath. femr2's modeling lacks this thrust and additionally disproves your "big jolt" hypothesis.

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.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

In reference to WTC2:

“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.”

[qimg]http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/imgs/figure4.gif[/qimg]

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 at the west wall seen before vertical drop
At WTC 1 the tilt and mass are less and the displacement (in both the x and y axes) proportionately smaller. This is why TS hides behind WTC1 and avoids the more obvious WTC2 - there are fewer videos and the ones available are distant, the tilt and mass is less, providing TS a better opportunity for denial and muddling.





For WTC 1 due to the tilt (3-8deg south) and horizontal thrust in one axis:
For WTC 2 due to the tilt (3-4deg south, 7-8 deg east) and horizontal thrust in two axes:

1. None of the upper block core column fractured ends (one fracture per failed column) hit the lower core column fractured ends axially or eccentrically.

2. None of the upper block perimeter column fractured ends (one fracture per failed column) hit the lower perimeter column fractured ends axially or eccentrically.
 
You can moan and groan all you want James, but the reality is that the upper section of WTC 1 did not decelerate. This means it could not have applied a dynamic load and something else must have been removing the strength of the columns below, as they were designed to support several times the load above them.

So complaining about the fact that this paper in a supposedly peer-reviewed journal does not follow even basic scientific standards, which any sixth grader would know, is just moaning and groaning?
 
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.

No (for the reasons sylvan and I have already provided). Draw a free body diagram and you will understand your mistake. You're just being stubborn. Admit you've screwed up a simple physics problem and we can move on.
 
. These measurements show no velocity loss occurred indicating there was no impulsive load.


Therefore it is obvious , The disintegration of those WTC buildings was at Free Fall Speed and even NIST admitted Free Fall Speed
 
Last edited:
Therefore it is obvious , The disintegration of those WTC buildings was at Free Fall Speed and even NIST admitted Free Fall Speed

ROFLMAO.

Please show any video where the buildings collapsed at freefall. There aren't any.

Please show the "disintegration" of the buildings because they didn't.

You keep using words that do not mean what you think they mean.

stop sniffing glue and try to finish school it will help you out later in life.
 
Therefore it is obvious , The disintegration of those WTC buildings was at Free Fall Speed and even NIST admitted Free Fall Speed
Tony's talking about the towers genius. :boggled:

Are you saying NIST said the towers fell at "free-fall speed". If so, you lie.
 
No (for the reasons sylvan and I have already provided). Draw a free body diagram and you will understand your mistake. You're just being stubborn. Admit you've screwed up a simple physics problem and we can move on.

If you have a freebody diagram, that you believe shows things to be different from what I explained, you are either misinterpreting it or it is wrong to begin with.

The only way a mass can be amplified to apply more force than it applies in a static state is to experience a deceleration greater than gravity during an impact. It is experiencing one unit of gravity in the static state where the force it applies is F = mg. To apply twice that load it needs to decelerate at twice that rate. This would be F = m x (2g).

I think you are confused by the initial static state.
 
M=C

If you have a freebody diagram, that you believe shows things to be different from what I explained, you are either misinterpreting it or it is wrong to begin with.

The only way a mass can be amplified to apply more force than it applies in a static state is to experience a deceleration greater than gravity during an impact. It is experiencing one unit of gravity in the static state where the force it applies is F = mg. To apply twice that load it needs to decelerate at twice that rate. This would be F = m x (2g).

I think you are confused by the initial static state.

But there are many smalls F=ma as mass hits other mass if it slows down there is some F, but yippees, if there is no damage all those floors come to rest on one floor and the floor is instantaneous overloaded and falls! oops, need not F=ma, just m+m+m+m+m+m+m+m+m+m+m which are mass on each floor, and poor floor fall, fails, drops at g, as fast as g, but then M+ hit floor m, and we go again. For details of why see NIST or use your command of engineering to make a rational conclusion. Wait you are the real-cd-deal. Oh darn.

A floor in the WTC can not hold more than 11 or 12 floors and it falls, so M, the mass of the 11 floors, and C collapse of the WTC are seen using the equation of
M=C
Mass of many floors causes collapse. For more info see real structural engineers and look at photos where the building bows due to fire doing things that are bad for steel.

Don't need F=ma, the big M can just sit on one floor and the floor goes down with g, until M+ hits next floor, and ripping off Shell and damaging Core, then M++ hits floor below next floor and they fall at g, them M+++
all the way down to M++++++++++...+++++

so you can use F=ma, but M=C for one floor; you lost this one and your real-cd-deal remains as it always was a the real-delusion deal.

take your f=ma and give it a rest, the top of the building destroyed the WTC floor by floor and you can hear the impacts of floors speeding up as the speed of the momentum transfer seem to modulate the sound. Heard the floors banging into floors no explosives.

I think of the terrorists cutting the pilots and crew throats to get their KE weapon on 911, you think of ways to apologize for terrorists and have failed to find anyone who planted explosives, or thermite in the ceiling tiles. Seriously, thermite in the ceiling tiles? You guys are amazing at making up a fantasy-land and delusional ideas. Judy Wood was in your select group, the beam weapon lady, how is she doing with your movement?

You are right, if there is not big impact where the mass is accelerated(negative) there is no big F. But the bad news for the WTC, as it falls is each floor is doomed with M+, you can place it as soft as you want with or without a jolt the floor is failing. Tell me why a floor with the mass of the top of building will not fail? explain why a floor in the WTC will not fail? Are you going to use Heiwa's pizza-box or lemon model?

If NIST does not help you understand, too bad most of NIST goal was not to satisfy your inability to understand 911 and the WTC tower collapse. Your need to make up fantasy conspiracies theories is your problem and we need no new investigation to see you can't understand the old one.

Will you gain knowlege, or will we see you pushing the real cd deal 10 years from now?


You are wrong on this conspiracy theory; now what?

Why did the Pentagon collapse? Fire?
 
Last edited:
Your diagram is not accurate. The upper section did not tilt that much before the columns of the 97th and 99th floors would have collided. The lateral movement is also insignificant at the small angles involved.

The stress on the east and west perimeter walls can be shown not to have been sufficient to cause their failure with a slight tilt. You also shouldn't discount the core columns.

A 2-D model was done on the 911freeforum showing that the core columns alone would have prevented the collapse if their strength was not removed.


And femr2, who built that model, has explicitly stated that his model does NOT capture any of the dynamics of the collapse initiation. Or the chaos that ensues after the collapse begins.

He doesn't capture any of the damage caused by the plane or subsequent collapse.

He doesn't capture any of the deflections of the columns out of dead vertical. Yet we know for certain, because of the tilt and the damage, that they were not vertical.

He doesn't capture any of the bending or shear loads that cause the deflection of those columns.

And, most fatal to your "the columns must collide" nonsense is the fact that they do not capture the massive amount of whipping of the column ends when the connections fracture.

With regards to your "they'll collide after they drop two stories":

1. the columns are 3 stories tall. There are NO surfaces that can possibly collide after 1 or 2 stories fall, therefore NO columns can collapse after 1 or 2 stories drop.

2. femr's model doesn't consider any of the massive side loads (and massive lateral deflections) that would result from the compaction & expulsion of debris. This fact alone guarantees that no columns impact each other.

And yet, even tho the model's creator says that it doesn't prove anything about impacts, even tho the model's creator AGREES that the columns will not impact, YOU assert that his model proves that the columns do collide perfectly & squarely.

You are not being honest, Tony.

Tom
 

a youtube commando for da twoof.

1. NIST was talking about wtc7, not the twin towers.
2. The twin towers took over 15 seconds to collapse (in fact over 20 for the 2nd one. that is not freefall. Freefall for the towers is 9.22 seconds. if it is more than that, it isn't freefall.
3. For wtc7, there is a period of 2.25 seconds out of an 18 second collapse that was at/near freefall. Try again.

It helps if you can use a stopwatch and actually time the collapses. Massive fail.

I understnad that you just found loose change, but really you should do at least 5 minutes of REAL research (not youtube) to find otu for yourself.
 

Back
Top Bottom