David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

[Tony Szamboti]

The terrorists, or anyone else.

Insiders would have had plenty of time and cover to plant demolition devices.

There was an elevator upgrade going on during the nine months prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

The steel corrosion protection was upgraded in the years shortly before Sept. 11, 2001.

The steel fire protection was upgraded pretty much in the areas of aircraft impact in the years shortly before Sept. 11, 2001.

 

[alienentity]

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 - FYI they didn't model the curtain wall.

'It does not replicate the observed collapse' Yes, it does. And no, the truther peanut gallery hasn't offered anything that does. I think you have it backwards.

Or did the truthersphere produce a LS-DYNA model of their own that we don't know about? I didn't think so.

 

[alienentity]

Insiders would have had plenty of time and cover to plant demolition devices.

There was an elevator upgrade going on during the nine months prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

The steel corrosion protection was upgraded in the years shortly before Sept. 11, 2001.

The steel fire protection was upgraded pretty much in the areas of aircraft impact in the years shortly before Sept. 11, 2001.

Or, fires and plane impacts could have damaged the buildings causing them to collapse.

My money's on that one, Tony. And I'm not about to lose the bet. You are.

 

[alienentity]

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

They didn't need to: They flew planes into them, or didn't you notice?

The evidence for the planes and fires is overwhelming; the evidence for demolition devices is nonexistent.
Gee, I wonder which theory fits the evidence? Have to think about that one.....haven't eliminated Invisible Monsters from Outer Space yet, since you can never prove they WEREN'T there, that means they probably were.

Yup, it must've been Invisible Space Monsters. Case closed. (/insane truther)

 

[PookztA]

amazing

it amazes me how many people still believe that jetfuel and gravity can cause a steel building to collapse in 10 seconds when it would only take a billiard bill 9.22 seconds to hit the ground if dropped from the top floor of the WTC buildings in a VACUUM.

i feel bad for those people, but at the same time, at least there are the folks in the 9/11 Truth Movement that are looking into this and doing something about it for the good of all people.

oh well...

 

[alienentity]

LS-DYNA engineering model showing how WTC7 could collapse from fires alone:
1

Truther LS-DYNA engineering model showing how WTC7 could NOT collapse from fires alone:
0
Truther LS-DYNA engineering model showing how WTC7 could collapse from unseen, silent high explosives which don't actually exist:
0

You guys are D.O.A. Tony. You've lost the intelligent, science-based arguments and are now just crazy people.

 

[R.Mackey]

(To the noob, going instantly on Ignore) Nobody believes that, including NIST. Nobody said that or suggested it.

Please go back to the year you came from, approximately 2004. Thanks.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony - FYI they didn't model the curtain wall.

'It does not replicate the observed collapse' Yes, it does. And no, the truther peanut gallery hasn't offered anything that does. I think you have it backwards.

Or did the truthersphere produce a LS-DYNA model of their own that we don't know about? I didn't think so.

They didn't model the curtain wall? Really?

I think you are blowing smoke here alien and I don't see how you are going to explain this gaffe.

 

[rwguinn]

it amazes me how many people still believe that jetfuel and gravity can cause a steel building to collapse in 10 seconds when it would only take a billiard bill 9.22 seconds to hit the ground if dropped from the top floor of the WTC buildings in a VACUUM.

i feel bad for those people, but at the same time, at least there are the folks in the 9/11 Truth Movement that are looking into this and doing something about it for the good of all people.

oh well...

And round and round it goes...

 

[alienentity]

it amazes me how many people still believe that jetfuel and gravity can cause a steel building to collapse in 10 seconds when it would only take a billiard bill 9.22 seconds to hit the ground if dropped from the top floor of the WTC buildings in a VACUUM.

i feel bad for those people, but at the same time, at least there are the folks in the 9/11 Truth Movement that are looking into this and doing something about it for the good of all people.

oh well...

strawman. Neither of the towers collapsed in 10 seconds, except in the imaginations of people who don't know what they're talking about, like yourself.

I'll do you a favour and let you eat your own words in the privacy of your own home. Watch this video. Bubye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAYXdafNl6E

 

[Tony Szamboti]

They didn't need to: They flew planes into them, or didn't you notice?

The evidence for the planes and fires is overwhelming; the evidence for demolition devices is nonexistent.
Gee, I wonder which theory fits the evidence? Have to think about that one.....haven't eliminated Invisible Monsters from Outer Space yet, since you can never prove they WEREN'T there, that means they probably were.

Yup, it must've been Invisible Space Monsters. Case closed. (/insane truther)

They flew planes into the buildings to make everyone think that was the cause.

Interestingly, the collapses actually inititiated above the major aircraft impact damage, so the NIST was forced to pretty much say fire alone caused the collapses. The only thing the NIST could use the aircraft impact for was to try and say it removed fire proofing material from the steel causing it to heat up faster.

It is a shame they don't have any physical evidence for high steel temperatures. Now why would that be? Oh, that's right they got rid of all of the steel from WTC 7 and over 99.5% of it from the towers before it could be properly examined. You have to be nuts to support the official story when you hear that kind of nonsense occurred. Real investigations intent on finding a true cause do not operate that way.

 

[DGM]

it amazes me how many people still believe that jetfuel and gravity can cause a steel building to collapse in 10 seconds when it would only take a billiard bill 9.22 seconds to hit the ground if dropped from the top floor of the WTC buildings in a VACUUM.

i feel bad for those people, but at the same time, at least there are the folks in the 9/11 Truth Movement that are looking into this and doing something about it for the good of all people.

oh well...

Wow:
1 post and you show how little you know about what is known about the event. That has to be a record for a show of ignorance. Congratulations and welcome. Try to keep up.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

They flew planes into the buildings to make everyone think that was the cause.

Interestingly, the collapses actually inititiated above the major aircraft impact damage, so the NIST was forced to pretty much say fire alone caused the collapses.

What an utterly bizarre interpretation of the report... last I checked we weren't discussing fictional stories.

ETA: I've removed the other quote. Repeated too many damn times D:<

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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).

Several people have already done the math. He's made the request for individuals to do it themselves so he's free to comment on it any time. I figure if the math is wrong anywhere he should be able to point out where the interpretation goes awry.

I'd be interested personally in the feedback if anything particularly glaring exists that can put what's wrong into context. Doing it myself IMOP actually improved my understanding, at least assuming it was done correctly.

 

[WilliamSeger]

They didn't model the curtain wall? Really?

I think you are blowing smoke here alien and I don't see how you are going to explain this gaffe.

I take it, then, that you aren't really familiar with their model? The report describes each of the elements that were modeled -- no curtain walls mentioned, and none shown in any of the graphics derived from the model. Furthermore, the report talks about some of the things they needed to do to simplify the elements they did model, to get the number down to three million so it was runnable. Why would they model non-structural elements that couldn't have played any part in the structural failures? To make the animation look more convincing to "truthers?"

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I take it, then, that you aren't really familiar with their model? The report describes each of the elements that were modeled -- no curtain walls mentioned, and none shown in any of the graphics derived from the model. Furthermore, the report talks about some of the things they needed to do to simplify the elements they did model, to get the number down to three million so it was runnable. Why would they model non-structural elements that couldn't have played any part in the structural failures? To make the animation look more convincing to "truthers?"

Not to mention that the curtain walls would have hidden the very things that they were trying to observe.

 

[TruthersLie]

They didn't need to: They flew planes into them, or didn't you notice?

The evidence for the planes and fires is overwhelming; the evidence for demolition devices is nonexistent.
Gee, I wonder which theory fits the evidence? Have to think about that one.....haven't eliminated Invisible Monsters from Outer Space yet, since you can never prove they WEREN'T there, that means they probably were.

Yup, it must've been Invisible Space Monsters. Case closed. (/insane truther)

AE.

NO. It was MOTHRA

m
o
t
h
r
a

 

[TruthersLie]

it amazes me how many people still believe that jetfuel and gravity can cause a steel building to collapse in 10 seconds when it would only take a billiard bill 9.22 seconds to hit the ground if dropped from the top floor of the WTC buildings in a VACUUM.

i feel bad for those people, but at the same time, at least there are the folks in the 9/11 Truth Movement that are looking into this and doing something about it for the good of all people.

oh well...

Oh lookie... I think it may be roscoe...

Neither tower collpased in under 15 seconds. That is much longer than 10 seconds.

Try again.

tsk tsk tsk.
I know that youtube is sooooo hard to use, but actually try to time the collapse. Thank you come again.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Good God, Tony, I didn't honestly believe you could say anything more idiotic. You're arguing that if the lower structure collapses, the upper block doesn't have any mass. I simply can't comprehend how you can say things like this.

It's perfectly simple. A mass m, under 1g gravity, experiences a downward force of mg due to gravity. In order to experience an upward acceleration of 2g - in other words, a deceleration of 2g if it's already moving in a downward direction - an additional upward force of 3mg must be applied. And that should be clear to anyone with at least high school physics training, as should the fact that the structural condition of anything below the falling mass is irrelevant to this perfectly general result.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

And there we have it, the irreducible delusion.

The upper block was falling under gravity. It was therefore continuously converting potential energy into kinetic energy. We know the exact rate at which this energy conversion was taking place, from Newton's laws. We also know that the upper block was accelerating downwards at an average acceleration of around 2/3g. This is therefore irrefutable proof that a continuous loss of kinetic energy was taking place, as the resulting kinetic energy was less at any time than it should have been if no kinetic energy were lost. Tony is committed to the belief that loss of kinetic energy is impossible without an actual deceleration, when in fact this belief is completely unfounded in any physical law.

Dave