David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

[AZCat]

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.

I suspect this is either
1) the response of engineers who can sense how wedded you are to your delusions and (quite rationally) decide to placate you as a way of avoiding a drawn-out discussion;
or
2) untrue.

 

[tfk]

Ryan,

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.

Don't lose any sleep. You're not wrong.

There is nothing else to uncover.
It ain't hard. It ain't complex. It ain't subtle.

Once all the double talk & misdirection is blown away, it becomes simple.

In order to apply a significant impulse to the upper block, you have to input an enormous amount of energy into it. That energy has to pass from the lower block thru some physical interface and into the lattice structure of the upper block. The one & only interface that could possibly transmit that amount of energy would be a square, simultaneous, and DURABLE contact between the vast majority of upper column ends to lower column ends.

(Even this won't do it. But it is the ONLY structure that has to be considered.)

You'll notice that, when they built the building, they did not simultaneously hurl 287 60-ton column assemblies at each other from 12' away, and expect them all to "stick". They placed them, one at a time, slowly & with exquisite care, and supported them while they assembled & tightened up many vertical & lateral supports.

Far, far less chance to have this occur when the columns are carrying about 75 tons (core) or about 25 tons (peripheral) each, and they are all flying around in random directions.

No interface -> no energy transfer -> no impulse.

 

[WilliamSeger]

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.

Yes, I understand what you're saying, but my simple diagram and arithmetic are not intended to be anything but an explanation for why little (if any) "load amplification" would be necessary if the top block was tilted when it fell. The crux of Tony's argument is that the structure could not fail without load amplification because the total reserve strength of the columns was greater than the total static load, so such force would necessarily cause a deceleration, even if the columns failed because of the dynamic load. But that logic is faulty if the columns could not act all together: If a significant percentage of the total static weight of the top block were bearing down on a small group of columns at any one time, as it must with any tilt, then it might not be possible for those columns to generate even 1 mg of decelerating force {edited for precision} before failing, even under the most optimistic scenario of squarely hitting columns with strong floor connections. My point is that Tony's underlying logic is flawed, even without getting into a more realistic analysis of how the structure actually failed.

 

[R.Mackey]

I suspect this is either
1) the response of engineers who can sense how wedded you are to your delusions and (quite rationally) decide to placate you as a way of avoiding a drawn-out discussion;
or
2) untrue.

I've challenged Tony to name the engineers and scientists he's discussed this with. Unsurprisingly, those he claims as supporters are all Truther engineers.

Even the excuses are recycled. This is why I have him on Ignore.

If his ideas were ever accepted by mainstream science, that would be different -- but, again, that will never, ever happen. And it's his fault.

 

[tfk]

If his ideas were ever accepted by mainstream science, that would be different -- but, again, that will never, ever happen. And it's his fault.

I'd suggest that it's Tony's fault that, through lack of initiative*, 99.999% of the engineering world has never, and will never, hear about his ideas.

Even if he did get off his butt & get them written up & submitted, the reason that they will never be accepted is ... because they're wrong.

(Which, okay, IS his fault, too.)

Nevermind...

Tom

*PS. It ain't laziness or lack of effort that has kept him from writing & submitting his ideas for publication.

If he put in 1/100 the effort into writing & submitting his paper that he puts into writing blog posts, he'd have finished this years ago.

It's fear. Fear, because he knows how wrong he is. But he can't crawl out of the hole that he's carefully dug for himself with any intact dignity.

And for some strange reason, he can't bring himself to just walk away.

If he weren't such an accusatorial dick about things, it'd be a full-scale Greek tragedy.

Written small, of course.

 

[R.Mackey]

That's absolutely what I was getting at.

Think about it. If he really had the goods, he wouldn't -- after YEARS -- still be heckling people on an obscure message board.

It takes some guts to show your work to real professionals, and take the risk that you will likely (or in thise case, certainly) hear "nope, you're totally wrong, here's your mistake, start over." Lots of people can't bring themselves to do that. But they only wind up cheating themselves. An hour of catharsis, versus (in this case) four years and counting of denial.

 

[rwguinn]

That's absolutely what I was getting at.

Think about it. If he really had the goods, he wouldn't -- after YEARS -- still be heckling people on an obscure message board.

It takes some guts to show your work to real professionals, and take the risk that you will likely (or in thise case, certainly) hear "nope, you're totally wrong, here's your mistake, start over." Lots of people can't bring themselves to do that. But they only wind up cheating themselves. An hour of catharsis, versus (in this case) four years and counting of denial.

I have read Tony's stuff, here and in his "paper", and it's stuff that would flunk-out a 2nd year engineering student.
Don't know how you consider yourself, and not speaking for the other engineers and scientists here, but:
I am a real professional. I have trained all my life, have the degree (and W2's) to prove it, (as well as being licensed-a minor point, admittedly)
THere are lots of engineers here who are professionals.
So please be a wee bit more specific...

 

[R.Mackey]

Oh, I'm professional as well. But for whatever reason, Tony dismisses our opinion.

My point is that he is effectively dismissing all opinion. Science requires repeatability. His conclusions have been confirmed by no one who isn't a crackpot. Yet, rather than look for confirmation, he'd rather just keep arguing here.

There's no way he'll ever accomplish anything, but I imagine it must be fun for him to argue incessantly.

 

[bill smith]

Oh, I'm professional as well. But for whatever reason, Tony dismisses our opinion.

My point is that he is effectively dismissing all opinion. Science requires repeatability. His conclusions have been confirmed by no one who isn't a crackpot. Yet, rather than look for confirmation, he'd rather just keep arguing here.

There's no way he'll ever accomplish anything, but I imagine it must be fun for him to argue incessantly.

You were saying that it takes real guts to show your work to somebody who can check it out and you also said that science rquires repeatability. I understand that you are well in with NIST . Would you check with them for us if they will release their WTC7 final report numerical data and assumptions,tweaks to the program etc for the kind of independent verification you are talking about ?

Somebody said that hey were refusing to release the WTC7 data on the grounds that it would 'endanger the public safety' to do so. Of course that cannot be accurate surely ? But can you check it out anyway. Thanks.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

TFKs post was well written and simplified so that any functionally literate person could understand it.

I do not believe that Mr. Szamboti was unable to understand it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes, I understand what you're saying, but my simple diagram and arithmetic are not intended to be anything but an explanation for why little (if any) "load amplification" would be necessary if the top block was tilted when it fell. The crux of Tony's argument is that the structure could not fail without load amplification because the total reserve strength of the columns was greater than the
<snip>
most optimistic scenario of squarely hitting columns with strong floor connections. My point is that Tony's underlying logic is flawed, even without getting into a more realistic analysis of how the structure actually failed.

That's kind of where I'm at with this :\
But I'm reading the argument a bit differently too. Chandler and Szamboti both assert that the average resistance of the lower section was 0.31g (or of the static weight; that the structure was failing at less than the static load). He and Chandler have that grotesquely reversed.

They failed under a force greater than the static load, but significantly lower than the maximum possible force. Remember, the mass was already accelerating and after a 3.8 meter drop it was moving at ~8.6 m/s (19.3 miles per hour). The force is a function of acceleration and the mass, but acceleration is also the change in velocity over time. Meaning if the mass is still traveling in the positive direction then the force the floor offers (atleast with my numbers) before breaking would've be far less than the 8g figure I got a couple pages ago for example.

BLAH... my wording is horrible... :\
Anyway somebody mind clarifying what I mean to sound better?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

It sounds like you are just doing some wishful thinking out loud. The reality is that the present official story cannot explain the continuous acceleration of WTC 1 or the full freefall of WTC 7 without looking at controlled demolition. Since they refuse that option it seems their only alternative is to attempt to disingenuously discredit the messengers like David Chandler and myself. Unfortunately, that won't work as the problems we have brought up are too severe and easily understood by any engineer or scientifically trained person.

 

[tsig]

It sounds like you are just doing some wishful thinking out loud. The reality is that the present official story cannot explain the continuous acceleration of WTC 1 or the full freefall of WTC 7 without looking at controlled demolition. Since they refuse that option it is obvious their only alternative is to shoot the messengers like David Chandler and myself.

If it was a CD why didn't the government blame it in the terrorists?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I have an inkling feeling the circle of life is about to repeat another ugly cycle...

 

[alienentity]

The reality is that the present official story cannot explain the continuous acceleration of WTC 1 or the full freefall of WTC 7 without looking at controlled demolition..

ETA I note you once again avoid WTC2....hmm I wonder why?
Physics and engineering can and do explain those things very well, in fact, without the artifice of controlled demolition (which actually doesn't fit the facts well at all).

So, you are wrong. Extremely and persistently.

 

[alienentity]

One of the most idiotic things TS has managed to post is his complete denial of the entire NIST-developed model for the collapse of WTC7. Anybody with a few functioning brain cells and a bit of knowledge can comprehend the basics of the WTC7 collapse and understand that it could and did happen without any explosive demolition - especially since there is zero evidence for explosive demolition in the first place.

It's over, Tony. Your argument is lost. You become more weak-minded and farcical as this continues.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

One of the most idiotic things TS has managed to post is his complete denial of the entire NIST-developed model for the collapse of WTC7. Anybody with a few functioning brain cells and a bit of knowledge can comprehend the basics of the WTC7 collapse and understand that it could and did happen without any explosive demolition - especially since there is zero evidence for explosive demolition in the first place.

It's over, Tony. Your argument is lost. You become more weak-minded and farcical as this continues.

The NIST finite element model of WTC 7 is literally an embarassment on its face. It has severe exterior deformation not seen in the actual collapse. It does not replicate the observed collapse.

What is truly farcical is the unquestioning acceptance and superficial defense of this obvious nonsense by people like yourself.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

If it was a CD why didn't the government blame it in the terrorists?

It might be hard to explain how the terrorists could have planted demolition devices in the buildings.

 

[aggle-rithm]

It might be hard to explain how the terrorists could have planted demolition devices in the buildings.

The terrorists, or anyone else.

 

[DGM]

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.

I think I'm going to put this claim into the same file as Tony's claim that Larry Silverstein admitted on TV that he had building 7 demolished (the show only Tony saw).