David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

It is proven that the columns would not miss each other and I have explained to you several times that there is very little extra vertical loading due to a small tilt.

These alleged smaller jolts that some claim to have found are not in the data we took and are not indicative of column impact and energy drains. The measurements of these are on the order of 2 ft. per second and would only be indicative of slab impact and the conservation of momentum that would entail. These are far from what would be necessary to cause a natural collapse of the lower structure, and the small tilt involved doesn't explain the missing impulse either.

It would seem you are the one here who doesn't seem to get it and are actually in denial.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It is proven that the columns would not miss each other and I have explained to you several times that there is very little extra vertical loading due to a small tilt.

Columns work best when they can transmit loads via a direct path to the ground. When you have a tilt, you're introducing a new situation in which the direct path is interrupted. The load wouldn't have to change at all for it to induce failure. You [should] know this as well as anyone. When tower 2 began to collapse it only took a 2 degree tilt to break the column connections in the immediate impact area and I've showed it to you before graphically. I can't see how you expect the tilt to be insignificant solely on the grounds that the load would have to change to make it happen, it doesn't need to in all cases.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Columns work best when they can transmit loads via a direct path to the ground. When you have a tilt, you're introducing a new situation in which the direct path is interrupted. The load wouldn't have to change at all for it to induce failure. You [should] know this as well as anyone. When tower 2 began to collapse it only took a 2 degree tilt to break the column connections in the immediate impact area and I've showed it to you before graphically. I can't see how you expect the tilt to be insignificant solely on the grounds that the load would have to change to make it happen.

You are just taking a leap of faith here and that won't do.

I am talking about WTC 1 here so let's be clear about that. In WTC 1 the small amount of eccenticity introduced by the small tilt cannot be shown to decrease the buckling strength by any more than 10%. I have looked at this to see if it really mattered.

I have not seen you show that the small tilt in WTC 1 could have possibly altered the situation in any meaningful way.

 

[Seymour Butz]

deleted

The most intelligent post I've ever seen from Tony.

 

[WilliamSeger]

It is proven that the columns would not miss each other...

No such thing can be "proven" by a model that doesn't include any rotation of the top block. You merely assume it was "negligible" without evidence or math, and you ignore both the evidence and the math that there was appreciable lateral movement.

... and I have explained to you several times that there is very little extra vertical loading due to a small tilt.

No, you have explained no such thing, despite numerous requests, but I'll give you another opportunity. If the diagram below were a static condition, how much of the weight of the top block would be on those perimeter columns on the right side:

{EDIT FOR CLARITY SO TONY CAN'T MISS IT AGAIN: The columns across floor 97 have already collapsed. What happened to the load they were carrying?}

Independently of how squarely the columns hit (and as unrealistic as it is to assume they hit squarely), the answer to that question obviously affects how much "load amplification" would be necessary to collapse those columns, and hence how much of a jolt should be expected from those columns. I am still dumbfounded that a mechanical engineer cannot immediately see that any tilt means that the columns cannot act as a single unit to resist the falling top block, which is a fundamental assumption in your paper.

These alleged smaller jolts are not indicative of column impact and energy drains. The measurements of these are on the order of 2 ft. second and would only be indicative of slab impact and the conservation of momentum that would entail.

Sez you. Until you have something resembling a realistic estimate of how much jolt should really be expected, you are in no position whatsoever to handwave away these "alleged smaller jolts" and claim that your theory is still valid.

It would seem you are the one here who doesn't seem to get it and are actually in denial.

Grab a ring.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Tony, the columns were in 3 floor splices. And they were staggered on the perimeter. When one floor of columns buckles and fails, it affects up to 3 floors of columns. You appear to be trying to argue that all of the columns buckled and failed and then impacted itself. That's ludicrous.

 

[moorea34]

It is proven that the columns would not miss each other and I have explained to you several times that there is very little extra vertical loading due to a small tilt.

These alleged smaller jolts that some claim to have found are not in the data we took and are not indicative of column impact and energy drains. The measurements of these are on the order of 2 ft. per second and would only be indicative of slab impact and the conservation of momentum that would entail. These are far from what would be necessary to cause a natural collapse of the lower structure, and the small tilt involved doesn't explain the missing impulse either.

It would seem you are the one here who doesn't seem to get it and are actually in denial.

No Tony, you can't see the deceleration because your data gives only 6 points per second...

Try again with this document.
http://www.bastison.net/FAQ/Answer.pdf

The first jolt (black graph) corresponds to a loss of 50 % of cinetic energy, not only the conservation of momentum.... But the consequence on the graph (red) is ridiculous due to lack of precision of the data.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

delete

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No, you have explained no such thing, despite numerous requests, but I'll give you another opportunity. If the diagram below were a static condition, how much of the weight of the top block would be on those perimeter columns on the right side:

[qimg]http://opendb.com/images/wtc1tilt.jpg[/qimg]

It ain't tower one, but I think it explains the point with a little more clarity...

I'm not sure at what scale a tilt is supposed to be considered inconsequential but the reason I brought tower 2 up in the first place is because the columns were warping from the moment it began to move. WTC 1 may have had half the floors above the impact regions, but 15 stories is about as large or more so than a lot of office buildings where I live. That's not a mass you want coming down.

 

[rwguinn]

It ain't tower one, but I think it explains the point with a little more clarity...
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4719/tilt.png

I'm not sure at what scale a tilt is supposed to be considered inconsequential but the reason I brought tower 2 up in the first place is because the columns were warping from the moment it began to move. WTC 1 may have had half the floors above the impact regions, but 15 stories is about as large or more so than a lot of office buildings where I live. That's not a mass you want coming down.

There you go, bringing reality into the discussion. How can you expect to convince anyone if you insist on facts?
The towers, obviously, pivoted on the far-side columns in pure rotation about the "Y" axis, with no displacement of the hinges in "X". Any pictures showing buckling and lateral displacement are obviously photoshopped, you SHILL!
Buckling, my ass! [/troofer]

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No Tony, you can't see the deceleration because your data gives only 6 points per second...

Try again with this document.
http://www.bastison.net/FAQ/Answer.pdf

The first jolt (black graph) corresponds to a loss of 50 % of cinetic energy, not only the conservation of momentum.... But the consequence on the graph (red) is ridiculous due to lack of precision of the data.

Is this a freudian slip as in "it only happens in the movies"? You know like the cinema. I know you are a French speaker and don't expect you to spell perfectly in English, but I couldn't pass up the joke here, as what you are saying is not what happened and your graph does not represent the measured data in the Missing Jolt paper.

In reality, there was no kinetic energy loss as there never was a velocity loss in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1. Velocity loss was easily measurable with data points taken every 167 milliseconds as the recovery time would have been about 700 to 800 milliseconds.

 

[tfk]

Tony,

It is proven that the columns would not miss each other

This is a joke. It is so much a joke that it DOES rise to the level of a lie.

Please show me where this has been proven by anyone.

and I have explained to you several times that there is very little extra vertical loading due to a small tilt.

And this is so carefully crafted, and intentionally misleading, that it ALSO rises to the level of a lie.

There is zero extra VERTICAL load due to the tilt.

Who gives a rat's butt about "vertical load due to the tilt".

How about the extra vertical load on some columns due to the damage?

How about the extra vertical load on some columns due to the "heat -> expand -> plastic yield -> cool -> shrink" cycle of the core?

How about the loss of stability due to lost lateral support?

How about the extra BENDING loads due to the tilt?

"... very little extra vertical loading due to a small tilt ..."

It is willfully, intentionally misleading statements like this that DO make you a deceiver. A misleader. And, in every meaningful sense of the word, a liar.

Sorry, Tony. It does not give me any satisfaction to say that. I consider it a tragedy. But it is the inescapable truth, when you willfully split hairs, as you did in that sentence, and then present people with such a deceptive conclusion.

BTW, loads don't matter, Tony. Mechanics 101. Nothing fails due to load. They fail due to stress.

STRESSES matter. TOTAL stresses. Not just "vertical components" of stresses.

C'mon, Tony. Tell the folks here that "the stresses didn't change much in the columns".

I DARE you.

These alleged smaller jolts that some claim to have found are not in the data we took and are not indicative of column impact and energy drains.

Wrong, Tony.

The smaller jolts (i.e., impacts) is BLATANTLY obvious in your data.

The smaller jolts are PRECISELY why the average acceleration was only 70% of G. If it were not for the smaller jolts, then the early (i.e., first 3 stories) acceleration would be close to 100%G.

The measurements of these are on the order of 2 ft. per second

Measurement of "a jolt" given in "ft/sec"??
The unit of measurement of a jolt is ft/sec^3.

Measurement of an "energy drain" in "ft/sec"?
The unit of measurement of energy is "ft-lb".

This is your incompetence, Tony: sloppiness.

Oh yeah, and your other incompetence that you are about to demonstrate: evasiveness when your glaring errors are exposed.

and would only be indicative of slab impact and the conservation of momentum that would entail.

You will, of course, show your work that proves that this "pull out of your butt" VELOCITY CHANGE of 2 ft/sec is the result of "slab impact", and not some other work done.

Can't wait...

These are far from what would be necessary to cause a natural collapse of the lower structure, and the small tilt involved doesn't explain the missing impulse either.

OK, now we've gone from "missing jolt" (ft/sec^3) to "missing impulse" (lb-sec).

The massive momentum loss is missing because there is no column to column contact.

You haven't demonstrated that column-to-column impact is possible.
In fact, "column end-to-column end" impact of any type is 100% impossible after 1, 2 or more story's descent.

It would seem you are the one here who doesn't seem to get it and are actually in denial.

"... doesn't seem to get it ..."?
"... in denial ..."?

Time for you to make up some lame excuse as to why you don't have to address these issues & run away again, Tony.

Who "doesn't get it"?
Who is "in denial"?

Tom

 

[AZCat]

I am impressed Tony is still posting in this thread after he showed conclusively how poor his understanding of basic mechanics is. In fact, he's still flogging the "there was no kinetic energy loss as there never was a velocity loss" argument that was the central reason I dismissed him in the first place.

 

[tfk]

I'm not particularly interested in the letters that Tony wrote to Bazant.

I'd be very interested in the exact verbiage (not TS "interpretation") of any letter that Bazant, or any competent structural engineer, wrote back to him after reading his theories.

Tom

 

[Tony Szamboti]

BTW, loads don't matter, Tony. Mechanics 101. Nothing fails due to load. They fail due to stress.

STRESSES matter. TOTAL stresses. Not just "vertical components" of stresses.

C'mon, Tony. Tell the folks here that "the stresses didn't change much in the columns".

I DARE you.

Tom

This is the only part of your post that is even worth responding to.

Stresses are a function of the loads, the size and shape of the structural element, and the mechanics involved.

Now that that is clear, I will say that it can be proven that the small tilt in WTC 1 had very little effect on the stresses in the columns below and could not have been a cause for the missing deceleration and velocity loss, which would be required for the load above to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below in a natural collapse.

 

[alienentity]

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. <snip> 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?

Also you wrote '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.'

Tony, this is heresay. You need to document that claim. You are now directly implying that Dr. Bazant is somehow supportive of your paper. Now, it does seem rather peculiar that the good doctor failed to respond to your emails.
Don't delude yourself that Bazant even for a moment agrees with your thesis, and for heaven's sake don't try to make that claim.

You'd think, if he thought they had merit, that he would be a little more responsive, else why bother making such a statement to Frank Greening?

Tony, your story just doesn't add up. You need to show some proof. I also recall you claim to have seen a piece of video which implicated Larry Silverstein, yet nobody on earth seems to have access to it....

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, dude. You're falling well short of the latter.

 

[alienentity]

No Tony, you can't see the deceleration because your data gives only 6 points per second...

Try again with this document.
http://www.bastison.net/FAQ/Answer.pdf

The first jolt (black graph) corresponds to a loss of 50 % of cinetic energy, not only the conservation of momentum.... But the consequence on the graph (red) is ridiculous due to lack of precision of the data.

Well done! Thank you.

 

[tfk]

In reality, there was no kinetic energy loss as there never was a velocity loss in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1. Velocity loss was easily measurable with data points taken every 167 milliseconds as the recovery time would have been about 700 to 800 milliseconds.

Sloppy & deceptive.

The "recovery time" is DIRECTLY tied to the magnitude of the velocity drop.

You only get your 700 - 800 msec recovery time with your absurdly huge velocity drop.

With reasonable velocity drops due to continuous, small collisions, the "recovery time" is small, continuous and invisible to your coarse data collection.

BTW, your own data PROVES that there are innumerable, small collisions in a second way, as well.

If there were not the case, then the slope of the V vs T curve (i.e., the acceleration) between the collisions would approach 100% of G.

The ONLY thing that reduces it to a fairly constant value of 0.7G are the small, continuous collisions.

Multiple aspects of your own data prove that your theories are nonsense.

Tom

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And the overall small effect those collisions had can be quantifed with conservation of momentum... I really don't see the problem here; Chandler could have easily done that math to confirm that what we observed happened and had no need at all of any extraneous sources :\

Had Chandler done so, his answer would have been right there in front of him. It's exactly this kind of convolution that makes me doubt his competence or genuine intentions in the first place.

Well, if you guys will excuse me I got a model and presentation boards to finish for a midterm

 

[alienentity]

Notice how Tony assiduously avoids WTC2, which clearly shows column bending and tilt, so obvious to the casual observer that it is ludicrous to impose the fantasy of explosives as the cause of collapse.

Yes, WTC1 is more subtle, so it's easier for Tony to weave his illusion into the picture, and hope to get away with it.
But his arguments are even more obviously D.O.A. regarding WTC2 - they don't fit at all, and never will. Hence he will run away from it.

If you want to see a gigantic jolt, then watch Tony try to compare and contrast the failures of the two towers while reconciling the facts with his denials and pseudo-science. I'm certain his eyeballs would be vibrating in their sockets.