David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

[alienentity]

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

Well this is the nub of it, isn't it? The main truther argument was that the buildings fell at or near freefall acceleration, somehow 'proving' that explosives were used. Nevermind that this theory has never been properly defined mathematically or by competent engineering.

But in fact neither tower collapsed at freefall acceleration, so this actually disproves their own cherished theory. Enter characters such as TS and DC, who construct (thru varying degrees of incompetence and trickery) pseudo-engineering arguments which superficially explain away this fatal problem with the original idiotic theory of freefall.

By compounding all their errors each time a new quack argument is made, the whole thing has become convoluted and ludicrous. I have no doubt that this whole grotesque failathon wouldn't survive under the scrutiny of the mainstream engineering community. It's already dead except in the minds of these charlatan/crackpots and their gullible followers.

This is no different from any other flimflam. As always, it's dressed up in the cultural references of the day.

 

[WilliamSeger]

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.

There is no extra TOTAL vertical load due to the tilt, of course, and if that's what Tony was saying has been "explained" then yes, I'd have to suspect that was deliberately deceptive. The issue I've been so unsuccessful in getting Tony to respond to is what the tilt means to WHERE the load is being applied at any given point in time.

In the diagram that I keep asking him to respond to, it appears to me that about half the weight of the upper block would be on the perimeter columns on the right side, because the only other significant support is coming from the perimeter columns on the other side. NIST says that the perimeter columns carried about 40% of the gravity load of the towers, and Tony wants to use a reserve capacity factor of 5 for the gravity loading on the perimeter columns. Even if I accept that figure, then that would mean that the four perimeter walls together could carry 200% of the weight of the upper block, or 50% per wall. That's so close to the roughly 50% that I see in my diagram that I wouldn't trust rough estimates of load and capacity to predict whether or not those remaining perimeter columns would collapse under the static weight alone. So even if the top block hit squarely on the columns, little or no "load amplification" would be required. Then, if you consider that there is no realistic way for the columns to hit squarely, so there is no way those columns could realistically resist 50% of the top block weight, I just don't see any mystery about a missing jolt: Those columns would fail or be pushed aside without ever offering enough resistance to cause any deceleration, and the other columns at that level would meet the same fate SEQUENTIALLY, never being able to react all together because of the tilt. Then, if you consider that small jolts ARE observed in Tony's own data, I'm really baffled why Tony thinks his arguments are still viable.

 

[moorea34]

Of course 700-800 msec are largely overstimated...

The fact that you use the class section (used in european calculus code! maybe it's the same in United States, I don't know) shows you don't understand correctly the diference between buckling and local buckling parameters...

That leads you to an epic fail when you evaluate the loss of energy.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Of course 700-800 msec are largely overstimated...

The fact that you use the class section (referenced in european calculus code! may be it's the same in United States, I don't know) shows you don't know the diference between buckling and local buckling parameters...

That leads you to an epic fail when you evaluate the loss of energy.

You do not have a legitimate criticism of the column energy dissipation calculations in the Missing Jolt paper.

I did those calculations with a retired Canadian civil engineering professor and the losses we calculated are actually conservative to the low side. We categorize the perimeter columns as class 4 and do not allow them to sustain a plastic hinge and say they will buckle locally and absorb less energy.

I showed him your comments a while back, which were similar to what you are saying here, and he said what you were saying about our work was simply not true.

 

[TruthersLie]

You do not have a legitimate criticism of the column energy dissipation calculations in the Missing Jolt paper.

I did those calculations with a retired Canadian civil engineering professor and the losses we calculated are actually conservative to the low side.

I showed him your comments a while back, which were similar to what you are saying here, and he said what you were saying was simply not true.

sorry...
the missing jolt what?

Paper? Really?

round and round we go... where has it been published? What peer review did it go through? When can we expect to see it in a mainstream (heck a NON vanity journal would be nice).

Until then, you have the Missing Jolt ESSAY... or the Missing Jolt hypothesis.. not the Missing Jolt "paper."

And back to your retired Civil Engineer as peer review... wowsers.. absolutely amazing.

So we have a retired civil engineering prof, and you claim Dr. Greening and Dr. Bazant say there are no errors which affect your central thesis...

Whew... I"m glad we got that cleared up, i was just thinking you were a quack who is terrified of genuine peer review, or is too afraid to actually submit this "paper" to a real journal.

ETA: And tony, you really do need to stop doing that. YOu know, editing in and adding other things after others have posted. It is dishonest.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hey Tony...

When you hand resumes to potential employers, do you wonder what they would think if they googled your name and see what you've been posting here?

Let's keep it civil and on topic, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[tfk]

Tony,

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

Yeah, Tony. I know.

Because you HAVE NO ANSWER to the crucial question of "how does one possibly transmit the energy required into the framework of the upper block?"

You know this. I know this. Everyone knows this.

Your claim that it is an insignificant issue is just another lie, Tony.

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

I say again.

Parts fail because of local stresses.
Not loads.

I know what are the various factors that produce stress, Tony.
Only one of the two of us is incompetent.

You were lying to the people here by invoking the "vertical load" of the tower, and claiming - explicitly - that the fact that "the vertical load did not change" was meaningful.

At no time did the "vertical load" of the upper block of the towers change.

The vertical load of the upper block of the towers did not change from the 9/10/01 to 9/11/01, to 9/11 That added about 120 tons of jet, bfd, but that was below the "upper block". Combustion of a couple tons of office contents actually lightened the vertical load of the upper block, bfd.). And the vertical load of the upper block didn't change,,,, or either.

The vertical load of the upper block was about 50,000 tons on 9/10/01.
The vertical load of the upper block was about 50,000 tons on 9/11 before the jet impact.
The vertical load of the upper block was about 50,000 tons after the impact.
The vertical load of the upper block was about 50,000 tons prior to tilt.
The vertical load of the upper block was about 50,000 tons during tilt.
The vertical load of the upper block was about 50,000 tons after tilt.
The vertical load of the upper block was about 50,000 tons just before collapse initiation.

The vertical load of the upper block never changed one iota.
If "vertical load" was the determining factor in the collapse initiation or progression, then the tower would never have collapsed.

But you may have noticed, Tony, that it DID collapse. So it is PROVEN that vertical load is irrelevant to the collapse.

And it is proven that you were waving around a factor that is irrelevant to the collapse, claiming that it is meaningful.

Your whole comment about "vertical load" was one giant, hand-waving misdirection. And since it is allegedly within your "field of expertise", then it is also proven that:

1. your claims about vertical load were a lie, or
2. your claims about mechanical engineering expertise are a lie.

QED.

Now, during the impact, the fires & the tilting, did the LOCAL STRESSES in the components of the buildings change, Tony?
You bet your ass they did.

So, Tony, in conclusion:

Was it the change in the vertical loads that caused the progressive tilt, Tony?
No, Tony. Because the vertical loads did not change.

Was it the change in local stresses that caused the progressive tilt, Tony?
You bet your ass it was.
__

Was it the change in the vertical loads that caused the bowing of columns, Tony?
No, Tony. Because the vertical loads did not change.

Was it the change in local stresses that caused the bowing of columns, Tony?
You bet your ass it was.
__

Was it the change in the vertical loads that caused the contraction of the core, Tony?
No, Tony. Because the vertical loads did not change.

Was it the change in local stresses that caused the contraction of the core, Tony?
You bet your ass it was.
__

Was it the change in the vertical loads that caused the collapse initiation, Tony?
No, Tony. Because the vertical loads did not change.

Was it the change in local stresses that caused the collapse initiation, Tony?
You bet your ass it was.
__

Was it the change in the vertical loads that caused the collapse to propagate to the ground, Tony?
No, Tony. Because the vertical loads did not change.

Was it the change in local stresses that caused the collapse to propagate to the ground, Tony?
You bet your ass it was.
__

Stresses matter, Tony. Local stresses.
Not loads.

Now, presume to lecture me again about the difference between load & stress. You pompous, incompetent buffoon.
__

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 you say this only because you are incompetent.

There are multiple components - in addition to the angle of tilt - that contribute to the stresses. The local stresses. The only type of stresses that matter.

And because of those other factors, even a small amount of tilt can produce huge bending & shear stresses in those columns. "Huge" in the only way that matters: "compared to what they were designed to withstand".

And those bending stresses are PROVEN to be "huge compared to what they were designed to withstand" by the very fact that they tilting INCREASED with time. Ergo, the bending stresses exceeded the creep stress limits.

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.

There is no "missing deceleration", Tony. You've accounted for it.

0.7G of acceleration is accounted for. 0.3Gs of acceleration has (in your fantasy world) "gone missing". It's sitting right there in your data.

There is no velocity loss, because there is no massive jolt. There is no massive jolt because there's no way to transmit it to the columns of the upper block.

Simple.

Take your fingers out of your ears.

Or step up to the plate like a man, and provide a plausible way to introduce those impacts to the bottom surface of the columns of the upper block.

I won't hold my breath on that...


Tom

 

[moorea34]

You do not have a legitimate criticism of the column energy dissipation calculations in the Missing Jolt paper.

I did those calculations with a retired Canadian civil engineering professor and the losses we calculated are actually conservative to the low side. We categorize the perimeter columns as class 4 and do not allow them to sustain a plastic hinge and say they will buckle locally and absorb less energy.

I showed him your comments a while back, which were similar to what you are saying here, and he said what you were saying about our work was simply not true.

So, as you needed help, you admit that you are not competent in the domain.

Thank You!

 

[dafydd]

Some one please tell me that Tony has never designed any buildings.

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

Exactly.

Again, as I said before, I'd be impressed if Dr. Bazant accepted Tony's findings. Until we see it, it didn't happen. There is no reason to expect that it ever will.

 

[AZCat]

Some one please tell me that Tony has never designed any buildings.

I think you're safe. It doesn't appear Tony has ever worked in the building industry, nor has he ever claimed to be a licensed professional engineer (which means if he did switch industries, someone else would have to review his work before it was issued).

 

[rwguinn]

Exactly.

Again, as I said before, I'd be imdepressed if Dr. Bazant accepted Tony's findings. Until we see it, it didn't happen. There is no reason to expect that it ever will.

Fixed that
Because acceptance would mean either Dr. Bizant had drifted into his dottage, or every textbook, physics and engineering course, and 99.999% of the world's engineers and physicists were wrong, or that God has changed the rules.
again ...

 

[tsig]

You do not have a legitimate criticism of the column energy dissipation calculations in the Missing Jolt paper.

I did those calculations with a retired Canadian civil engineering professor and the losses we calculated are actually conservative to the low side. We categorize the perimeter columns as class 4 and do not allow them to sustain a plastic hinge and say they will buckle locally and absorb less energy.

I showed him your comments a while back, which were similar to what you are saying here, and he said what you were saying about our work was simply not true.

Tony, just to clarify , are you saying that when the upper block fell the columns of the upper block landed on the columns of the lower block and that should have caused a jolt?

 

[R.Mackey]

Fixed that
Because acceptance would mean either Dr. Bizant had drifted into his dottage, or every textbook, physics and engineering course, and 99.999% of the world's engineers and physicists were wrong, or that God has changed the rules.
again ...

Fair enough. I'm assuming, however, that his acceptance would be because he's seen something that I haven't. I would be remarkably surprised to find I was wrong, particularly given the cornucopia of stupidity Tony's produced over the years, but I'm not infallible.

And before anyone thinks I'm using Dr. Bazant as an appeal to authority or call to perfection, the only reason is because Tony brought him up first, "implying" that Dr. Bazant approved of his paper (which he hasn't, of course). The larger problem is that Tony absolutely will not submit to peer review, will not follow proper channels of science, and will not seek nor listen to guidance from the broader engineering community. Just in case it wasn't obvious.

 

[rwguinn]

Fair enough. I'm assuming, however, that his acceptance would be because he's seen something that I haven't. I would be remarkably surprised to find I was wrong, particularly given the cornucopia of stupidity Tony's produced over the years, but I'm not infallible.

<snip>.

I could accept that, also.
I would be amazed, but I can be swayed by logic, facts, and verifiable analysis

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Fair enough. I'm assuming, however, that his acceptance would be because he's seen something that I haven't. I would be remarkably surprised to find I was wrong, particularly given the cornucopia of stupidity Tony's produced over the years, but I'm not infallible.

And before anyone thinks I'm using Dr. Bazant as an appeal to authority or call to perfection, the only reason is because Tony brought him up first, "implying" that Dr. Bazant approved of his paper (which he hasn't, of course). The larger problem is that Tony absolutely will not submit to peer review, will not follow proper channels of science, and will not seek nor listen to guidance from the broader engineering community. Just in case it wasn't obvious.

I would hardly call the few engineers on here who claim to disagree with me "the broader engineering community". Every engineer that I talk to outside of this forum has serious problems with the current explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 once they find out it was in full freefall for eight stories or 2.25 seconds at the beginning of it's externally visible fall, and also with the collapse of WTC 1 once they find out there is no deceleration and velocity loss by the upper section during its descent.

The answers we have been given thus far are not seen as anywhere near sufficient when these actual issues are brought up. Anyone who looks into this sees the NIST reports on WTC 1 and WTC 7 as wholly inadequate, regardless of a few vocal people simply proclaiming them to be.

 

[tfk]

Will,

There is no extra TOTAL vertical load due to the tilt, of course, and if that's what Tony was saying has been "explained" then yes, I'd have to suspect that was deliberately deceptive. The issue I've been so unsuccessful in getting Tony to respond to is what the tilt means to WHERE the load is being applied at any given point in time.

You're almost there. Just one more step. But a crucial one.

"Stress" is, by definition, the load per unit area. It is the specific "local" load seen by each tiny group of atoms of some simple or complex part.

A length of cable, made out of the same steel alloy, can fail under a tensile load of .001 grams, or a tensile load of a million pounds.
[ETA: for a small wire & thick cable, respectively.]

But it will fail at exactly (well, approximately) the same stress.

Stress accounts for all the factors that you are thinking about here. Plus a bunch more.

Parts that look smooth & continuous fail at stress concentration, stress risers. Slight changes in geometry, or surface roughness, or shifting of macroscopic loads, etc. etc. etc. ALL of these factors are automatically accounted for if you discuss "local stresses".

You can try to cut your steak with the flat side of a spoon. Or with a knife. In both cases, you push down equally hard. The load is identical. The stress is not. The meat cuts NOT due to load, but due to stress.

In the diagram that I keep asking him to respond to, it appears to me that about half the weight of the upper block would be on the perimeter columns on the right side, because the only other significant support is coming from the perimeter columns on the other side.

As in all of these things, it gets a bit more complicated when you get into the details. (Not surprising. We do have to have some justification for it taking years to sink in, after all...)

The stress condition of the intact building was defined by a large (but manageable) purely compressive stresses. Plus much smaller transient loads impressed by wind side loads & building dynamics (the momentum of swaying). [ETA: Here I'm talking principally about the columns.]

The load of any given wind (say a nice, steady breeze) is constant (a distributed load up the windward side of the building). But the stresses that result from that load are going to be different in every component of the building. And also different at most different locations within the same component.

When you start adding loads in multiple directions, the local stresses that result add up (as vectors) at each point within the components. There are theories that allows you to calculate the worst-case stress & direction as a result of single direction or multiple-direction loading. They use what's called "Mohr's circle of stress". In one particular direction, the normal forces (tension/compression) are going to be a maximum, and in a different direction (usually 45° to the max normal in real life & 90° on the Mohr diagram) the shear stresses are going to be a maximum.

The above tells you "what the max stress is". There are a bunch of criteria that have been generated over time (some theoretical, many empirical) that tell you whether or not your part is going to fail as a result of the impressed stress. One popularly used example (for materials like structural steel with mostly static loads) is shown here.

And there are dozens of failure criteria, depending on the particular material, the type of loading (compression, tension, bending, etc.), load levels & cycling (static, static plus dynamic, static plus reversing, high cycle fatigue, etc. etc. etc.)

Again, every single tiny domain of material in any part has it's complex stress conditions that need to be analyzed. (Now you're getting a glimpse of why this "finite element analysis" is so valuable. This is exactly what it does: break up complex parts into many, many tiny parts, and examines the stress condition of all the tiny pieces.)

And finally, as everyone has noticed, the "acceptable" level of stress for plastic deformation is critically dependent on temperature. And creep is critically dependent on both temperature & the actual stress level.

My point here is that Tony's cavalier comments are not only absurdly over-simplified. They are, from an engineering perspective, outright deceitful.

NIST says that the perimeter columns carried about 40% of the gravity load of the towers, and Tony wants to use a reserve capacity factor of 5 for the gravity loading on the perimeter columns. Even if I accept that figure, then that would mean that the four perimeter walls together could carry 200% of the weight of the upper block, or 50% per wall. That's so close to the roughly 50% that I see in my diagram that I wouldn't trust rough estimates of load and capacity to predict whether or not those remaining perimeter columns would collapse under the static weight alone.

You have to get the right failure mode in order to identify where you are with respect to "margin".

For collapse initiation, the failure was not load bearing capacity of the columns. It was bending, and then buckling, of the columns.

While the initial failure was buckling of columns, it quickly turned into failure of connections between components. The bolts that connected columns to columns, and the weld beads that attached the trusses to the inner & outer columns. If you want to discuss margins, then you HAVE to consider these elements & not the columns.

Once the collapse began, the columns could have all magically turned into Unobtanium, with infinite strength, flexibility, toughness, whatever you want. It would not have changed the outcome one iota. Because the columns themselves did not fail. The connections did.

(This is proven by the fact that the vast majority of the columns in the rubble pile showed little indication of massive amounts of plastic deformation. Some did. The corner welds of some box columns tore. But overall, this was a minor effect.)

Therefore the columns' margin of safety is irrelevant to the conversation.

And, as has been stated time after time, Tony's margin of safety was derived for, and applies ONLY to, columns that were "as built, properly cross-braced, and loaded as intended by the design".

Just as soon as any of these conditions are violated, then the "as built margin of safety" number becomes meaningless.

The above pretty much decimates Tony's misleading statements about safety margins.


The fact that a flat end-to-end contact between the lower columns & the upper ones is impossible destroys his "missing jolt" theory. This condition is absolutely, 100% required by his theory, and it is impossible. And Tony knows that it is both necessary and impossible. And that is precisely why he won't discuss the matter.

But let me know if you want to get into the details of the column load conditions just prior to, or after collapse began.


Tom

 

[beachnut]

...Every engineer that I talk to outside of this forum has serious problems with the current explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 ...

Is this a lie or a delusion?

List them. Prove this is not another delusion. Please have them sign up and prove your statement of support.

Did you tell them the Penthouse dropped into WTC7 and destroyed all the support you say was thermited away? lol

the real cd deal lives on in your conspiracy theories and delusions

 

[Tony Szamboti]

As in all of these things, it gets a bit more complicated when you get into the details. (Not surprising. We do have to have some justification for it taking years to sink in, after all...)

The stress condition of the intact building was defined by a large (but manageable) purely compressive stresses. Plus much smaller transient loads impressed by wind side loads & building dynamics (the momentum of swaying).

The load of any given wind (say a nice, steady breeze) is constant (a distributed load up the windward side of the building). But the stresses that result from that load are going to be different in every component of the building. And also different at most different locations within the same component.

When you start adding loads in multiple directions, the local stresses that result add up (as vectors) at each point within the components. There are theories that allows you to calculate the worst-case stress & direction as a result of single direction or multiple-direction loading. They use what's called "Mohr's circle of stress". In one particular direction, the normal forces (tension/compression) are going to be a maximum, and in a different direction (usually 45° to the max normal in real life & 90° on the Mohr diagram) the shear stresses are going to be a maximum.

The above tells you "what the max stress is". There are a bunch of criteria that have been generated over time (some theoretical, many empirical) that tell you whether or not your part is going to fail as a result of the impressed stress. One popularly used example (for materials like structural steel with mostly static loads) is shown here.

And there are dozens of failure criteria, depending on the particular material, the type of loading (compression, tension, bending, etc.), load levels & cycling (static, static plus dynamic, static plus reversing, high cycle fatigue, etc. etc. etc.)

Again, every single tiny domain of material in any part has it's complex stress conditions that need to be analyzed. (Now you're getting a glimpse of why this "finite element analysis" is so valuable. This is exactly what it does: break up complex parts into many, many tiny parts, and examines the stress condition of all the tiny pieces.)

And finally, as everyone has noticed, the "acceptable" level of stress for plastic deformation is critically dependent on temperature. And creep is critically dependent on both temperature & the actual stress level.

My point here is that Tony's cavalier comments are not only absurdly over-simplified. They are, from an engineering perspective, outright deceitful.



You have to get the right failure mode in order to identify where you are with respect to "margin".

For collapse initiation, the failure was not load bearing capacity of the columns. It was bending, and then buckling, of the columns.

While the initial failure was buckling of columns, it quickly turned into failure of connections between components. The bolts that connected columns to columns, and the weld beads that attached the trusses to the inner & outer columns. If you want to discuss margins, then you HAVE to consider these elements & not the columns.

Once the collapse began, the columns could have all magically turned into Unobtanium, with infinite strength, flexibility, toughness, whatever you want. It would not have changed the outcome one iota. Because the columns themselves did not fail. The connections did.

(This is proven by the fact that the vast majority of the columns in the rubble pile showed little indication of massive amounts of plastic deformation. Some did. The corner welds of some box columns tore. But overall, this was a minor effect.)

Therefore the columns' margin of safety is irrelevant to the conversation.

And, as has been stated time after time, Tony's margin of safety was derived for, and applies ONLY to, columns that were "as built, properly cross-braced, and loaded as intended by the design".

Just as soon as any of these conditions are violated, then the "as built margin of safety" number becomes meaningless.

The above pretty much decimates Tony's misleading statements about safety margins.


The fact that a flat end-to-end contact between the lower columns & the upper ones is impossible destroys his "missing jolt" theory. This condition is absolutely, 100% required by his theory, and it is impossible. And Tony knows that it is both necessary and impossible. And that is precisely why he won't discuss the matter.

But let me know if you want to get into the details of the column load conditions just prior to, or after collapse began.


Tom

The above is nothing but massive unsupported gibberish, with engineering terms thrown in to make it sound good.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The above is nothing but massive unsupported gibberish, with engineering terms thrown in to make it sound good.

Yes, when you don't understand something, that's what it seems like.