David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

[TruthersLie]

so then you haven't gotten it through peer review then.

Is that correct?

Why not?

what about the errors they found which don't affect the thesis?

ETA: Tony, if you say greening and bazant think your thesis is valid, then why haven't you submitted it to any peer reviewed engineering journal? It should be easy to get through if Greening and Bazant say you have no errors.

 

[beachnut]

Actually Dr. Frank Greening has admitted that both he and Dr. Zdenek Bazant reviewed and discussed the paper and did not find any errors which would affect the thesis of the paper.

When will it be published?
Pulitzer prize?
Too bad there is zero thermite and no explosives to back up the big delusion of the real cd deal. But insane conclusions usually end in the reality they are a lie made up by paranoid minds. Is David a JFK conspiracy theorist too; chemtrails?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

so then you haven't gotten it through peer review then.

Is that correct?

Why not?

what about the errorst they found which dont' affect the thesis?

They did find a minor arithmetic error which did not affect the thesis of the paper. This was corrected and explained in a description of the changes at the end of the reference section of the paper on page 17.

 

[TruthersLie]

They did find a minor arithmetic error which did not affect the thesis of the paper. This was corrected and explained in a description of the changes at the end of the reference section of the paper on page 17.

Great then.

If greening and Bazant say there are no errors that affect the thesis of the paper (which for some reason I doubt, but I'll take your word for it), when will we see it in JEM, or any other peer reviewed engineering journal?

If you send it in, and with no errors it could see publication in 6 to 8 weeks... I eagerly await it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Any apologies here should be coming from those who have resorted to the use of ridicule in lieu of honest reality based discussion.

The math is pretty straight forward and it conclusively proves your contentions here wrong. There's nothing for me to apologize for. You don't understand the conservation of momentum, or vector arithmetic and it shows in your ridiculous contentions on the loading and deceleration claims, and it's clear Chandler neglected it when making the ridiculous assertion that the 64% average gravitational acceleration was indicative that something nefarious was going on during the collapse.

I'm open to your feedback on it though. Afterall you've asked people on a number of occaisions to do the math. I got off my lazy butt and worked on it, perhaps you'd like to chip in a comment if you see anything wrong.

 

[GlennB]

I must admit I had pause for thought when TS informed us that a stationary body must be accelerating at g by virtue of the fact that, er..... it was subject to forces proportional to g. Kind of lost interest soon after
Good luck with the ol' peer-review, Tony.

 

[R.Mackey]

If greening and Bazant say there are no errors that affect the thesis of the paper (which for some reason I doubt, but I'll take your word for it), when will we see it in JEM, or any other peer reviewed engineering journal?

If you send it in, and with no errors it could see publication in 6 to 8 weeks... I eagerly await it.

It typically takes more like six to twelve months, sometimes longer for in-demand publications, but I don't expect that will matter.

Personally, I'd be fairly impressed by a letter from Dr. Bazant stating that he reveiwed the paper and agrees with its findings -- something that Tony should be able to produce without delay, provided he's not lying again.

 

[moorea34]

It typically takes more like six to twelve months, sometimes longer for in-demand publications, but I don't expect that will matter.

Personally, I'd be fairly impressed by a letter from Dr. Bazant stating that he reveiwed the paper and agrees with its findings -- something that Tony should be able to produce without delay, provided he's not lying again.

The letter !!!! The letter !!!!

 

[TruthersLie]

It typically takes more like six to twelve months, sometimes longer for in-demand publications, but I don't expect that will matter.

Personally, I'd be fairly impressed by a letter from Dr. Bazant stating that he reveiwed the paper and agrees with its findings -- something that Tony should be able to produce without delay, provided he's not lying again.

Ryan.

I was assuming that Dr. Greening and Dr. Bazant's word would count as peer review, and it would be fast tracked for publication. AFter all this changes everything.

(of course in my articles in "soft" sciences (psychology, history and education) the longest I have had to wait to get published was 9 months, but that had several errors/fixes I had to make to get through peer review.)

 

[R.Mackey]

I was assuming that Dr. Greening and Dr. Bazant's word would count as peer review, and it would be fast tracked for publication. AFter all this changes everything.

It wouldn't. But knowing that Dr. Bazant is an expert, and not a crackpot, if it passes his muster I'd lay very good odds for it passing an independent review. As I said above, it would be good enough for me, but of course it will never, ever happen.

I'm sure you know but it bears repeating that peer review is not a guarantee of correctness. It's only a quality control. Anything that passes review should be testable and plausible at the very least, which is only the onramp of science. Of course, the Truthers have yet to get that far, which is why science ignores them utterly, and should continue to do so until they get their collective act together, if ever.

Oh, ETA: Dr. Bazant's response to Heiwa is complete and will be published shortly. Should be a good show.

 

[Jackanory]

Actually, Dr. Frank Greening has admitted that both he and Dr. Zdenek Bazant reviewed and discussed the paper and did not find any errors which would affect the thesis of the paper.
.

If they infact believe that the thesis of the paper to be completely incorrect, and as yet have not stated that, then they are infact likely to say that they didnt find any errors. How, as respected experts, can they be expected to determine if a paper they think is full of bull has any errors?

That is how i interpret what it is they may actually think. Unless you can produce a letter from them.

 

[Mel Odious]

If the collapse continues there is no structure to provide a reaction for the mass to act on and the deceleration of 2g is indicative of an applied force twice the static weight.

To get your 3mg force being applied by the lower structure you are adding in an extra g for the weight of the mass to be supported, which is not there if the structure below is collapsed, and that should be clear to anyone with at least high school physics training.

Hey Tony, if there is no structure to exert a reaction force on the falling mass (it's already collapsed, you seem to be saying), then where is the applied force coming from that's causing your 2g deceleration?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Hey Tony, if there is no structure to exert a reaction force on the falling mass (it's already collapsed, you seem to be saying), then where is the applied force coming from that's causing your 2g deceleration?

It would be the ampified load caused by the 2g deceleration that caused the structure to fail in this hypothetical. I would have thought that would be understood the way the argument was presented.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Ryan.

I was assuming that Dr. Greening and Dr. Bazant's word would count as peer review, and it would be fast tracked for publication. AFter all this changes everything.

(of course in my articles in "soft" sciences (psychology, history and education) the longest I have had to wait to get published was 9 months, but that had several errors/fixes I had to make to get through peer review.)

Are admitting here that you pulled that 6 to 8 week figure out of the air?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It typically takes more like six to twelve months, sometimes longer for in-demand publications, but I don't expect that will matter.

Personally, I'd be fairly impressed by a letter from Dr. Bazant stating that he reveiwed the paper and agrees with its findings -- something that Tony should be able to produce without delay, provided he's not lying again.

Dr. Greening has admitted to me that he had discussed the Missing Jolt paper at length with Dr. Bazant last March.

Since then I have e-mailed Dr. Bazant twice on the issue of no decleration and velocity loss being observed in the fall of WTC 1, and also to ask him for his calculations for the axial stiffness of the columns in the towers and column energy dissipation. Neither of those calculations are provided in his papers, and we calculate a much lower axial stiffness and much higher column energy dissipation using the released cross sections and yield strengths of the core columns and a fairly accurate estimate of those parameters for the perimeter columns. Unfortunately, he has not responded.

You do have a lot of nerve implying I have lied in the past. I have not lied about anything and do not behave in that manner. Casting these type of accusations about with no basis is unethical. Does that matter to you?

 

[TruthersLie]

Are admitting here that you pulled that 6 to 8 week figure out of the air?

oh yes tony.

<sarcasm>
I pulled teh 6 to 8 weeks to get any paper published (though the shortest mine took was 13) but I figured that if you have a letter from Greening and Bazant it would just blow everyones socks off, and that with how ground breaking your analysis is that the top engineering journals from all over the world would be breaking down your door to publish your "paper."

You said they agreed with your premise, so therefore it should just breeze through peer review at any real journal.
Isn't that right?

</sarcasm>

ETA: So lets go back to reality.
I know that commonly it takes about 6 months to get a peer reviewed journal article through peer review and into a journal.
I was making a joke (and yes pulling 6 to 8 weeks out of my ass) to mock Tony.

If Greening and Bazant think your paper has merit, then it would change the focus of 9/11 research. If they think your conclusions (which I think are batty) are acceptable, then I could see a peer review board possibly thinking the same thing. And since Dr. Bazant has such a long and distinguished career, I'm sure he could point you in the direction of a journal which would publish your "paper."

Yet for some reason, you still haven't sent it in. Why is that?
I mean at least Heiwa sent in something (not a paper mind you) and documented it. You don't appear to have his guts (level of delusions though??? maybe).

 

[BadBoy]

Hey BB,
<snip>
Nope. As above. A deceleration is a decrease in speed.

In the case of the upper blocks, each impact slows its instantaneous velocity.

During the descent, the blocks have three "phases":
Note: all of these velocities and accelerations are averaged, not instantaneous.
1) velocity increasing, acceleration approximately constant.
2) velocity increasing, acceleration decreasing (approaching terminal velocity).
3) velocity constant, acceleration = zero. (at terminal velocity)

Tony measured the first phase, and came up with an approximation that the acceleration was equal to a constant (=0.7G).


If you were to take many, many images around the time of the impact, you actually will see a sudden drop in velocity. And therefore a large instantaneous change in acceleration.

After the impacted part broke, then the acceleration would take over again, starting from the lower (post impact) velocity.

Yup.

Stick with it.

You don't have anything conceptually wrong. It's just the definition of the term "deceleration". That kind of mistake is easy to make, and easy to fix.

Conceptual mistakes are harder.

Tom

Thanks for that Tom and for spending the time explaining the basics. (its one of the reasons why I like Jref so much). I probably (obviously) need to do some reading up of the basics in order to be able to contribue at any level (other than calling Bill Smith a crack pot ). I want to because I find the discussion interesting. Then I think.. the argument has been so conclusively won whats the point, I wish I had known about JRef in 2006. Ah well.

 

[McHrozni]

You do have a lot of nerve implying I have lied in the past. I have not lied about anything and do not behave in that manner. Casting these type of accusations about with no basis is unethical. Does that matter to you?

Seeing as you paint yourself as an expert in structural engineering and yet are unable to grasp basic mechanics when after they're explained to you, it's not a stretch to assume you were lying in several spots.

Can you reproduce the emails you allegedly sent to Bazant?

McHrozni

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Seeing as you paint yourself as an expert in structural engineering and yet are unable to grasp basic mechanics when after they're explained to you, it's not a stretch to assume you were lying in several spots.

Can you reproduce the emails you allegedly sent to Bazant?

McHrozni

There is no reason to assume I am lying whatsoever. You are out of line with that and your silly comment that I can't grasp basic mechanics has no basis.

As for my e-mail messages to Dr. Bazant here is the second one. The first was lost when I was forced to format the hard drive of my old computer last May due to a virus.

----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Szamboti
To: z-bazant@northwestern.edu
Cc: Graeme MacQueen
Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 11:41 AM
Subject: The lack of deceleration in WTC 1


Dr. Bazant,

I am writing to you as it appears that you are continuing to support the notion that there was an impulsive load or significant impact of the upper sections on the lower sections of the buildings, after the initiations of the collapses of the twin towers, which caused collapse propagation by supplying the necessary dynamic load amplification to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below. I have also noticed that in a recent presentation you now state that the impact of the upper sections on the lower sections cannot be seen. While this makes sense if the collapses were naturally caused, and one cannot be faulted for thinking this would have had to happen, it appears to not conform to observation.

The fall of the upper section of WTC 1 has been measured and shows no indication of any impact having occurred. The velocity curve generated from the measured data is attached.

The reality is that while any impulse would be of too short a duration to be seen in a video, an impulse which would transfer the required energy and generate the necessary amplified load would cause a significant velocity loss. It would then take time for the upper section to recover to it's pre-impact velocity. This velocity recovery period is much longer than the duration of the impulse and would be very measureable in video with 30 frames/second such as those we have of the collapse of WTC 1. It is this velocity loss which is missing and thus proof that there was no impulse.

Attached is a graph of the velocity of the roofline of WTC 1 for the first several seconds of it's fall, which is measureable. There is no velocity loss seen whatsoever.

By contrast, I am also including a graph of the collapse of the Balzac-Vitry building demolition in France, where the demolition was performed without explosives by removing the columns of two stories hydraulically and allowing the momentum transfer by the upper section to provide the dynamic load amplification necessary to crush the lower section and itself. There is a definitive measureable velocity loss when the upper section impacts the intact lower section. This has been verified in several of these type of demolitions. Here is a link to a 54 second video of the Balzac-Vitry demolition for you to view if you have not seen it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE.

Given this, it seems that, at least in the case of WTC 1, your current papers on this topic do not match observation and that there is no natural mechanism explanation for the collapse propagation of WTC 1. I would sincerely suggest that you consider revising your papers and/or withdrawing them for the time being and getting on board with the large number of us engineering professionals who are asking that a new investigation be undertaken. You can sign a petition for this at http://www.ae911truth.org/

Sincerely,

Tony Szamboti
Blackwood, NJ

 

[WilliamSeger]

Tony, I'm not sure that even Bazant could convince me now that your paper has any merit, but I think you are delusional to think he would, so I don't expect that to ever become an issue. Here's the situation so far: You persist in dodging the incontrovertible fact that the tilt would have several effects, each of which would mean that the structure could not possibly provide a jolt of the magnitude you assume in your paper. The columns simply could not react as a single unit, at their full theoretical strength, so I don't see any point in refining estimates of stiffness and energy dissipation for a condition that did not exist. And then, several people have independently discovered that your own data actually does show smaller jolts that you missed and now completely ignore. You are in denial.