David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

[TruthersLie]

I would have swore there were those little investigations which lasted years...

you may have read about them.

thousands of pages by professional engineers.

hundreds of pages put together by political commissions

thousands of pieces of evidence gathered by the FBI and documented

100 page indictment against KSM...

you are soooo right. There has been no investigation.

Feel free tony. YOU pay for it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

But you haven't been saying that. Let me remind you, you claimed that an object being set down very slowly on a support experiences a deceleration of 1g. That's simply wrong. You seem to be trying to say that the most general and universal rules of mechanics don't apply to the specific situation you're discussing. They do.

I have always said that the amplification of the load is the amount of deceleration or resistance above 1g.

Which is hardly surprising, as the lower structure was being continuously crushed. If the time-averaged resistance was only about 10% of the maximum possible static resistance, that simply indicates that each element was offering resistance for no more than 10% of the time of the collapse. In the context of the known failure properties of steel, and of the likelihood that the failure mechanism of the structure would not allow it to exert its maximum possible static resistance, this is in no way exceptional.

This is nothing but unsupportable conjecture.

And, let me remind you, the difference between an acceleration of g and an acceleration of 0.7g is proof of kinetic energy loss. Potential energy has been lost, and it can only have been converted to kinetic energy; gravity is a force. Since not all of it is appearing as kinetic energy, it must have been lost to some other form of energy. Therefore, your repeated assertion that there is no loss of kinetic enegy is simply wrong.

Dave

For those unfamiliar kinetic energy is equal to 1/2 x mass x velocity squared. The measurements of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1 show velocity was never lost. If no velocity was lost then there could not have been a kinetic energy transfer. What you are describing is a resistance slowing the potential energy to kinetic energy conversion, That is not the same thing.

This statement of yours is somewhat contradictory Potential energy has been lost, and it can only have been converted to kinetic energy; gravity is a force. Since not all of it is appearing as kinetic energy, it must have been lost to some other form of energy.

The upper section was continuously accelerating and velocity was continuously being gained but at the rate of about 0.7g, a slightly slower rate than freefall. The work done to continue the collapse through the remaining 0.3g resistance was not done by kinetic energy transfer but by the force of the static weight on a structure which could no longer support it. Which is amazing, as it was designed to provide 10 times that resistance to the upper section load and the aircraft impact damaged only about 15% of the columns and the columns were not affected enough by fire to justify it either. The NIST doesn't even have any columns which show they experienced enough temperature to weaken them. The structure obviously fell apart for some other reason.

 

[JamesB]

Which is amazing as it was designed to provide 10 times that resistance to the upper section load.

Buildings are designed to resist thousands of tons of steel crashing through their floors? Who knew?

Are commercial airplanes designed to resist crashing into buildings too?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Buildings are designed to resist thousands of tons of steel crashing through their floors? Who knew?

Are commercial airplanes designed to resist crashing into buildings too?

It has been proven that the columns would not miss each other in the initial fall. That is what we are discussing here.

The airpane crash did not cause anywhere near enough destruction to cause local column instability let alone bring down the building and that is a settled issue. There is a reason the north wall did not collapse after the aircraft plunged through it.

 

[JamesB]

It has been proven that the columns would not miss each other in the initial fall. That is what we are discussing here.

The airpane crash did not cause anywhere near enough destruction to cause local column instability let alone bring down the building and that is a settled issue. There is a reason the north wall did not collapse after the aircraft plunged through it.

Regardless of whether you think the columns hit each other or not, only an idiot would argue that the building was designed with this collapse in mind.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.

So why would they go to so much trouble to secretly plant explosives, then not use them? Clearly, no explosives were detonated on 9/11.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So why would they go to so much trouble to secretly plant explosives, then not use them? Clearly, no explosives were detonated on 9/11.

I used the term demolition device. Are you sure there were no demolition devices of any type used in those buildings?

 

[Garb]

I used the term demolition device. Are you sure there were no demolition devices of any type used in those buildings?

Other than the planes that crashed into them, no.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Everything used from the "squibs" to the 600 ft column launches to advocate that idea when the simplest explanations are right there makes demolition redundant. I don't know what Chandler is advocating right now but the videos I've seen him produce on the collapse progression deals with supposed demolition waves with absolutely no mention as to why it couldn't have been air being forced out in the path of the mass. To be honest I'm really not interested in rehashing that stupid idea. No offense intended to either one of you but I'm not about to go through that discussion again, it really is that stupid.

This statement of yours is somewhat contradictory Potential energy has been lost, and it can only have been converted to kinetic energy; gravity is a force. Since not all of it is appearing as kinetic energy, it must have been lost to some other form of energy.

It's simple: Kinetic energy is what a body has as a result of it's motion. Potential energy is stored within a physical system as a result of the position or configuration of the different parts of that system. This is what's being explained. If it's not all appearing in the form of KE, then the other form would be output such as heat.

I don't see what the contradiction is here. It makes perfect sense to me.; it sounds like conservation of energy.

Which is amazing, as it was designed to provide 10 times that resistance to the upper section load and the aircraft impact damaged only about 15% of the columns and the columns were not affected enough by fire to justify it either. The NIST doesn't even have any columns which show they experienced enough temperature to weaken them. The structure obviously fell apart for some other reason.

As many times as I've seen you repeat this gross misrepresentation, have you ever once considered looking at what the average temperatures a large fire tends to hang around? I'm pretty sure the Cardington test data would have that information somewhere. The only justification I can see for you making that dubious claim is in following what other members of that AE911 group keep spamming out:

That this fire is supposed be small and dead. Reality was an entirely different matter.

 

[rwguinn]

It wasn't investigated because there was not sufficient evidence to believe that there were bombs in the buildings.

Nope.
It wasn't investigated because standard, competent engineering and physics analysis showed that the combination of damage by aircraft with unfought fires would always result in that type of building structure to collapse completely. Add that to the fact the detritus was examined thoroughly, and that there were no sounds or other indications of high explosive use, and you stop. No waste of $$$

Regardless of whether you think the columns hit each other or not, only an idiot would argue that the building was designed with this collapse in mind.

If you repeat false science enough, God will make it true seems to be the truther creed

 

[Tony Szamboti]

As many times as I've seen you repeat this gross misrepresentation, have you ever once considered looking at what the average temperatures a large fire tends to hang around? I'm pretty sure the Cardington test data would have that information somewhere. The only justification I can see for you making that dubious claim is in following what other members of that AE911 group keep spamming out:

That this fire is supposed be small and dead. Reality was an entirely different matter.

I base what I say on the fact that the NIST has admitted not having any physical evidence of the steel experiencing temperatures high enough to weaken it.

Why doesn't the NIST have any evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to weaken it, if what you are saying is true?

 

[rwguinn]

No identifiable steel reached high temperatures. There are plenty of steel members shown in the reports and elsewhere which show signs of high temperatures, they just can't say exactly where in the building they were located.
At what temperature does A36 steel loose 40% of its strength, Tony?

 

[alienentity]

I base what I say on the fact that the NIST has admitted not having any physical evidence of the steel experiencing temperatures high enough to weaken it.

Why doesn't the NIST have any evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to weaken it, if what you are saying is true?

That's just not true. Viscoplastic buckling can occur at 200 degrees if the structure is loaded sufficiently.
What you wrote is factually incorrect.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Why doesn't the NIST have any evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to weaken it?

Because you have not adequately read the report. You've been told enough times that the test used for that determination was based on paint spalling, and only on floors that could have their as built locations adequately identified. For all the habbub you give about them shipping off the steel I don't see how you expect them to also do dodgey analysis by using samples which they cannot accurately place the original location of.

If you're contending that what they did already is insuffiecient I fail at seeing how doing something more dubious would effect the outcome from where you're staring. Nevermind that you still dhaven't been swayed by more experienced people who have read far more literature in the report than myself.

That's just not true. Viscoplastic buckling can occur at 200 degrees if the structure is loaded sufficiently.
What you wrote is factually incorrect.

Of which there's more than enough photographic evidence and eyewitness (from helicopters) corroborating that. This case was obviously closed years ago. And doesn't really deserve any further attention here honestly

 

[Newtons Bit]

It has been proven that the columns would not miss each other in the initial fall. That is what we are discussing here.

No it hasn't. It doesn't even stand up to a cursory sanity check. The columns don't "impact each other" or "miss each other". The columns are in 3 story splices. When it fails it is either ripped out and thus cannot impact ITSELF. Or plastic hinges form and which case it can't fold over and then impact ITSELF. That's ludicrous to even suggestion.

The stump of a column that was above this ripped out column must fall 3 stories before "impacting" the next column. The only problem with that is both the upper column and the lower column in this case have been massively deformed by the collapse initiation.

The upper block, as it were, does not retain it's original shape either. It will deform. The lower portion of the upper block, where the damage to the floor system was the most extensive will experience the most deflection. The floor deck provides horizontal stiffness to the columns. Columns that suddenly become free from their lower supports and are no longer braced by the floor will move chaotically during the collapse propagation.

Furthermore, and perhaps even more obviously to everyone but you, said columns will have no where near the capacity as the structure did in it's original condition.

To use your words, "It has been proven that the columns would miss each other in the initial fall."

The airpane crash did not cause anywhere near enough destruction to cause local column instability let alone bring down the building and that is a settled issue. There is a reason the north wall did not collapse after the aircraft plunged through it.

Yea, the fire did the rest. You've seen my thread on exactly why this happened. Quit pretending that this exceptionally elementary engineering eludes you. You've become a snake oil salesman inebriated by your own lies.

 

[Garb]

Nope.
It wasn't investigated because standard, competent engineering and physics analysis showed that the combination of damage by aircraft with unfought fires would always result in that type of building structure to collapse completely. Add that to the fact the detritus was examined thoroughly, and that there were no sounds or other indications of high explosive use, and you stop. No waste of $$$

Isn't that what I said?

 

[alienentity]

NCSTAR 1-3 executive summary clearly lists exactly what was looked at and what the relevance was.
But your claim is directly refuted by NIST, so you have no business misrepresenting their work. I quote
E.3.6
Fire Exposure and Temperatures Reached by the Steel
ETA somehow pasted this at the bottom. Now corrected:
'WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector'

Temps reached above 250 Celsius!! If you refer to scientific data, ' it can easily be explained that the stress in some surviving columns most likely exceeded 88% of their cold strength. In that case, any steel temperature >
150◦ C sufficed to trigger the viscoplastic buckling of columns'
Bazant, Le et al 'What Did and Did not Cause collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
p2

And continuing

'Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to
alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures ofsteels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidenceof exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.'

That's still 600 C, which is definitely a weakened state for steel. Don't lie about this Tony.

You may be able to get away with fibbing regarding the Silverstein quote, which nobody can find, but not here, since it's so easy to verify your misrepresentations.

And you're of course completely ignoring the direct video and photographic evidence which showed gross deformation of steel columns and trusses.
Trying to pretend this didn't happen has nothing to do with seeking truth, it's actually quite the opposite.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Are you sure there were no demolition devices of any type used in those buildings?

The Fresh Kills examination teams sifted through all of the debris hauled out of Ground Zero with fingertips twice. And then they dug up the entire Fresh Kills site and sifted through the first three feet of soil again.

If there were tens of thousands of demolition devices in the WTC complex, they would have been found.

They just weren't there, Tony.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I have yet to see any explosive device that could have withstood the impacts and fires for that length of time. There is no reason to go any further than that.

 

[GlennB]

It has been proven that the columns would not miss each other in the initial fall. That is what we are discussing here.

I presume you're referring to the animation that shows theoretical column ends passing through each other as the building tilts and falls, retaining a large degree of overlap ?

In reality the building began to fall because column welds broke or columns bent. So, by definition, the ends were unable to meet.

Do you ever try to visualise what's happening to the columns during the first few feet of collapse? Perhaps that will help you.