David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

[McHrozni]

The measurements of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1 show velocity was never lost.

No, Tony, they don't. They show there was no net loss of velocity during every 167 ms that you sample. That doesn't mean there was no loss of velocity during that time. Since you claimed earlier, without substantiation, that 6g of deceleration would be sufficient to break the connections, if that time was less than 25 ms, you'll simply be unable to see it. This was pointed to you before.

There is another major error that you do, which is that you assume the upper block is perfectly rigid and any deceleration of it's lower end will be reflected perfectly in the roof line. Obviously that shows a rather gross misunderstanding of how materials behave under stress.

McHrozni

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

You have also said that an object at rest is accelerating at 1g, and that the collapse of the Twin Towers was not a dynamic situation because there was no deceleration. You've said so many things that are patently absurd, it's clear that your desperate need to prove the unprovable has over-ridden every critical faculty you possess.

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.

Rubbish, and a blatant attempt to confuse the issue. Potential energy is converted to kinetic energy by the force of gravity. If the acceleration is less than 1g, which you have admitted is the case, then energy is being lost to other forms. Describing it as 'a resistance slowing the potential energy to kinetic energy conversion' is simply playing semantic games. The collapse requires an energy loss from the falling block, that energy loss is observed, and you have observed it.

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.

No contradiction. Potential energy -> kinetic energy. Some kinetic energy -> fracture energy. Final kinetic energy is less than potential energy.

Do you know any basic physics?

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.

This statement is pure unsupported conjecture. But it's not particularly unrealistic, because the static weight was not carried by the entire, undamaged structure; this is certain from the fact that the upper block fell at an angle. Again, your level of delusion prevents you from comprehending that.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You have also said that an object at rest is accelerating at 1g, and that the collapse of the Twin Towers was not a dynamic situation because there was no deceleration. You've said so many things that are patently absurd, it's clear that your desperate need to prove the unprovable has over-ridden every critical faculty you possess.



Rubbish, and a blatant attempt to confuse the issue. Potential energy is converted to kinetic energy by the force of gravity. If the acceleration is less than 1g, which you have admitted is the case, then energy is being lost to other forms. Describing it as 'a resistance slowing the potential energy to kinetic energy conversion' is simply playing semantic games. The collapse requires an energy loss from the falling block, that energy loss is observed, and you have observed it.



No contradiction. Potential energy -> kinetic energy. Some kinetic energy -> fracture energy. Final kinetic energy is less than potential energy.

Do you know any basic physics?



This statement is pure unsupported conjecture. But it's not particularly unrealistic, because the static weight was not carried by the entire, undamaged structure; this is certain from the fact that the upper block fell at an angle. Again, your level of delusion prevents you from comprehending that.

Dave

It is astounding that you and several other posters here have the nerve to call others delusional while writing gibberish like you are here.

I have shown what I needed to show. There is no evidence of temperatures and damage anywhere near sufficient to cause initiation in WTC 1. Additionally, the NIST uses an artificial load to cause south wall inward bowing and buckling in WTC 1 and then does not even explain how a south wall failure could propagate across the building. On top of that it is proven that the columns could not miss each other and there is no evidence of the deceleration required for Dr. Bazant's hypothesis to have any merit.

In short, the current official explanation for the collapse of WTC 1 is a sham, and it appears that many on this site are nothing but cheerleaders for the NIST story who will not engage in honest debate since that requires admitting that the story is implausible.

 

[NutCracker]

It is astounding that you and several other posters here have the nerve to call others delusional while writing gibberish like you are here.

Tone writes this ^^^.

And then this vvv

I have shown what I needed to show. There is no evidence of temperatures and damage anywhere near sufficient to cause initiation in WTC 1. Additionally, the NIST uses an artificial load to cause south wall inward bowing and buckling in WTC 1 and then does not even explain how a south wall failure could propagate across the building. On top of that it is proven that the columns could not miss each other and there is no evidence of the deceleration required for Dr. Bazant's hypothesis to have any merit.

In short, the current official explanation for the collapse of WTC 1 is a sham, and it appears that many on this site are nothing but cheerleaders for the NIST story who will not engage in honest debate since that requires admitting that the story is implausible.

It is beyond painful.

Tony, when is this peer-reviewed well-respected journal article coming? You use the word "proven," I note. Why are you waiting?

ETA: when is physical evidence in support of your theories coming?

 

[tfk]

Hey, I used to have that job back in the 80s! It was in Bridgeport, Connecticut. My crew was working plenty of overtime, believe me.

I've considered going back to it, but my skills are rusty.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[groan...
and then LoL...]

 

[enik]

Yea, the fire did the rest. You've seen my 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.

I've seen your thread and have a few questions.
1. Did you know you used data (I and S) from a 16 x 16 beam?
2. NIST NCSTAR 1-6C page 14 lists E at 500C at 24 e6, shouldn't you have used this number over 8.7 e6?
3. Did you verify your analysis with an FEA?

 

[Newtons Bit]

I've seen your thread and have a few questions.
1. Did you know you used data (I and S) from a 16 x 16 beam?
2. NIST NCSTAR 1-6C page 14 lists E at 500C at 24 e6, shouldn't you have used this number over 8.7 e6?
3. Did you verify your analysis with an FEA?

1. I actually didn't know I used too large of an I and S. I'll have to correct that. Thanks for the catch!

2. I'll have to look at what NIST does with temperatures later. I got my numbers from AISC's Fire Guide.

3. This is an analysis to check NIST's FEA, not the other way around.

 

[GlennB]

...
On top of that it is proven that the columns could not miss each other
...

Where?

 

[JamesB]

It is astounding that you and several other posters here have the nerve to call others delusional while writing gibberish like you are here.

I have shown what I needed to show. There is no evidence of temperatures and damage anywhere near sufficient to cause initiation in WTC 1.

There isn't? What about those tons of molten metal that you guys have been talking about for years. Are Steven Jones and Richard Gage lying to us?

 

[TruthersLie]

It is astounding that you and several other posters here have the nerve to call others delusional while writing gibberish like you are here.

I have shown what I needed to show. There is no evidence of temperatures and damage anywhere near sufficient to cause initiation in WTC 1. Additionally, the NIST uses an artificial load to cause south wall inward bowing and buckling in WTC 1 and then does not even explain how a south wall failure could propagate across the building. On top of that it is proven that the columns could not miss each other and there is no evidence of the deceleration required for Dr. Bazant's hypothesis to have any merit.

In short, the current official explanation for the collapse of WTC 1 is a sham, and it appears that many on this site are nothing but cheerleaders for the NIST story who will not engage in honest debate since that requires admitting that the story is implausible.

Tony.

There is a very simple way to shut up all of the "cheerleaders for the NIST story."

Do you know what it is?

Peer review.

Very simple. Post your essay through any real peer review process at any engineering journal around the world, in any language.

And you will shut up those "cheerleaders."

When can we expect to see it? In what journal?

 

[tsig]

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

You're suggesting that something other that explosives were used as demolition devices?

 

[tsig]

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.

Even if the columns did meet, so what? Is Tony saying that they would somehow weld themselves back together? Otherwise they would hit and glance off each other.

 

[Swing Dangler]

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.

Here is what their goal was:

The operation at Fresh Kills had three objectives: to find human remains, personal effects, and any evidence of the terrorist attack such as a highjacker’s box cutter, cell phones from the planes, and the black boxes. The recovery operation evolved from simple hand-sorting into an elaborate machine-sifting and sorting process. All the material was carefully sorted to find objects down to one-quarter of an inch in size.

Their goal was not to look for explosive devices and it was limited to the plane only. Better yet, take the remains of an explosive device and mix it in with the debris from the collapses. Do you honestly think a wire from a device is going to be distinguished from a wire that was in the building prior to 9/11??
What did they find?

* Recovered 4,257 pieces of human remains
* 54,000 personal effects—95% belonging to survivors, including 610 pieces of jewelry
* $76,318.47 found loose in the fields
* 6 kilograms of narcotics
* 4,000 photos—found and delivered to Kodak Laboratories and NFL Films to be decontaminated and restored
* 1,358 destroyed vehicles processed: 102 pieces of fire apparatus, 61 police department vehicles, and 1,195 personal automobiles
* Hundreds of airplane fragments
* Several pieces of Auguste Rodin sculptures from the offices of the investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald
* Thousands of rounds of unexploded ammunition

What forensic operation took place?

Forensic Evidence and Recovery
The FBI Evidence Response Team evaluated all personal objects pulled from the conveyor belts before items were sent to the property trailer for cleaning, cataloging, and photography. A forensic anthropologist examined the suspected human remains to distinguish human from animal bone.

Notice anything missing? That's right, forensic evaluation of the steel in order to test for explosive residue. But they apparently got the personal objects sorted.

"We normally never let outsiders see a crime scene, let alone take photographs or touch anything... You have to remember we were here to find human remains. We were so focused we didn't realize we were part of history."
Richard Marx, FBI Special Agent and WTC Evidence Recovery Team Leader

What didn't they find?

The staff never recovered a black box from the jets, a box cutter, or anything relating to the hijackers.

AMAZING! They can find tiny bits of human remains, rings, and such but not 4 nearly indestructible black boxes.

Now Sword, according to your logic, since there was nothing found at Fresh Kills relating to the Hijackers, then the hijackers are non-existent. That is your logic used with explosive devices, so then I'm sure you agree the same logic can be applied to evidence relating to the hijackers. Are you sure you aren't a 9/11 Truther??

I don't see where they sorted everything 'twice' or dug down 3 feet at the landfill to search for 9/11 debris and remains. They re-sifted material after the piles were gone. That is not 'everything'. I'm assuming these were the piles of steel that were sent over seas and elsewhere.

Please if you will start the ad-hom attacks so I know JREF hasn't changed a bit in 9 years.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Tony.
There is a very simple way to shut up all of the "cheerleaders for the NIST story."
Do you know what it is?
Peer review.
Very simple. Post your essay through any real peer review process at any engineering journal around the world, in any language.
And you will shut up those "cheerleaders."
When can we expect to see it? In what journal?

Can you point me to the peer review of NIST's study?

Surely there can be no criticism of a scientific report put out by NIST, can there, if it has passed peer review?

Or is it above criticism because it is a government agency that published the report?

I'm thinking that if the NIST report is up to snuff, accurate, and infallible as you suggest Tony's work might be if placed in peer review, then there would not be a call for a new investigation. And yet strangely enough, the call for a new investigation 10 years later is louder than ever.

 

[tsig]

It is astounding that you and several other posters here have the nerve to call others delusional while writing gibberish like you are here.

I have shown what I needed to show. There is no evidence of temperatures and damage anywhere near sufficient to cause initiation in WTC 1. Additionally, the NIST uses an artificial load to cause south wall inward bowing and buckling in WTC 1 and then does not even explain how a south wall failure could propagate across the building. On top of that it is proven that the columns could not miss each other and there is no evidence of the deceleration required for Dr. Bazant's hypothesis to have any merit.

In short, the current official explanation for the collapse of WTC 1 is a sham, and it appears that many on this site are nothing but cheerleaders for the NIST story who will not engage in honest debate since that requires admitting that the story is implausible.

So before we can understand we have to believe?

We won't see evidence of the conspiracy until we believe in the conspiracy?

Tony R&P is over there----->

 

[TruthersLie]

Can you point me to the peer review of NIST's study?

Oh poor swing.

The NIST report is considered fully and completely peer reviewed.
http://www.nist.gov/director/quality_standards.htm
What does that link say? Oh that NIST is peer reviewed.

Pre-dissemination Review Process for Scientific Information

The pre-dissemination review process enables NIST to substantiate the quality of disseminated scientific information through documentation or other means appropriate to the nature and importance of the information, balanced against resources required and the time available.

Pre-dissemination review of scientific information disseminated by NIST is incorporated into the normal review processes for each type of information to take advantage of inherent quality checks that are part of the process of formulating the information. This review is at a level appropriate to the information, taking into account the information's importance, balanced against the resources required and the time available. NIST treats information quality as integral to every step in its process of developing the information, including creation, collection, maintenance, and dissemination. All scientific information disseminated by NIST receives a level of scrutiny commensurate with the critical nature of the information and its intended use.

Pre-dissemination review of scientific information can be accomplished in a number of ways, including but not limited to combinations of the following:

Active personal review of information by supervisors and managers, either by reviewing each individual dissemination, or selected samples, or by any other reasonable method.


Use of quality check lists, charts, statistics, or other means of tracking quality.


Careful design and monitoring of review processes to ensure they are effective.


Peer monitoring during information preparation.


Use of management controls.


Review of comments from the public.


Any other method which serves to enhance the objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information.
In addition to the methods listed above, all technical communications, including manuscripts for technical journal publications; letters to the editor; manuscripts for the NIST Technical Publication Series; computer software documentation; and other forms of technical communication regardless of the media or method used, receive technical, policy, and editorial review by one of the NIST editorial review boards: Washington Editorial Review Board (WERB), Boulder Editorial Review Board (BERB), or JILA Editorial Review Board (JERB). Each review board is made up of a Chairperson and representatives of each major technical activity or division at that NIST site to ensure a broad array of technical expertise. Voting members of Editorial Review Boards must be employees with permanent appointments or retired NIST staff members. If requested by an Editorial Review Board, technical communications may also receive legal review by the Office of NIST Counsel.

What does that say? Oh they go through internal peer review, but it is still peer review. They open the comments up to the public (another form of peer review) and go through it again.

wah wah wah

Surely there can be no criticism of a scientific report put out by NIST, can there, if it has passed peer review?

Or is it above criticism because it is a government agency that published the report?

your ignorance is showing.

if NIST is wrong, there would be dozens of (if not HUNDREDS) peer reviwed engineering journal articles which jump on it. One of the easiest ways to get a GREAT job, or a HUGE raise is to find an ERROR/mistake in something like the NIST report. Any engineer who could show that NIST was wrong would be offered tenure at MIT, Harvard or other engineering schools.

Can you show me a single peer reviewed engineering journal which says NIST is wrong?

I can show you about 75 or so which agree with NIST.

I'm thinking that if the NIST report is up to snuff, accurate, and infallible as you suggest Tony's work might be if placed in peer review, then there would not be a call for a new investigation. And yet strangely enough, the call for a new investigation 10 years later is louder than ever.

Oh poor twoof. I love it when you all show your ignorance and incredulity. It warms the cockels of my heart.

Now if you or Tony can just pass peer review at any engineering journal anywhere in the world... it would be a great day. It would actually signifiy something.

Poor swing... so sad.

 

[twinstead]

I'm thinking that if the NIST report is up to snuff, accurate, and infallible as you suggest Tony's work might be if placed in peer review, then there would not be a call for a new investigation. And yet strangely enough, the call for a new investigation 10 years later is louder than ever.

Nobody is claiming there isn't a call for a new investigation. Yet, I know a muslim group in the town next to mine that is calling for the US to institute Sharia Law, and NAMBLA STILL wants to decriminalize sexual relations between adults and children.

What is your point? Our point is that the cries for a new investigation aren't legitimate and born more of ideology and politics rather than science. The science of the NIST report is laid bare open for all to see from around the world. If it were garbage as you suggest, you'd think the call for a new investigation would actually come from people who have the respect from the scientific community that would actually enable them to DO something about it.

So, no, your "call for a new investigation" really doesn't impress me very much. But, it doesn't have to impress me. It has to impress the world's scientific community. It doesn't.

 

[TruthersLie]

I love twoof arguments from ignoance.

Here is what their goal was:


Their goal was not to look for explosive devices and it was limited to the plane only. Better yet, take the remains of an explosive device and mix it in with the debris from the collapses. Do you honestly think a wire from a device is going to be distinguished from a wire that was in the building prior to 9/11??

and yet no one noticed this

before hand.

and no one noticed this

right before the buildings collapsed

Do you know what det cord looks like after a CD implosion? I do. It is rather hard to miss. It doesnt' look like anything that belongs in the debris of a building.

Do you know what detonated explosives and left over debris look like? I do. They do not belong, and are rather different than what you would expect to find.

What did they find?


What forensic operation took place?

Notice anything missing? That's right, forensic evaluation of the steel in order to test for explosive residue. But they apparently got the personal objects sorted.

Do you know what else they didn't test for? No test for giant lizard poo. No test for fairy dust. No test for any thing which couldn't have been there.

Please. Pretty please. Provide just one type of explosive capable of cutting through the steel beams which supported the buildings. I can think of about 4 or 5 that would... or if home made a couple.

GREAT. Now can you tell me any of those which are silent? Huh?

What didn't they find?

AMAZING! They can find tiny bits of human remains, rings, and such but not 4 nearly indestructible black boxes.

argument from ignorance and incredulity. Can you please tell me what a black box is built to withstand? What are they capable of withstanding?

They are not "nearly indestructible," but they are very well designed. Can they be crushed? yes.

Can they be melted due to the fires which burned for 99 days? Yes they can

could they have been shredded by having several thousands of tons of materials collapse on them? yup.

it would have been much more interesting had any of them survived the collapses and the recovery period.

Can you tell what a FDR/blackbox looks like after hitting a building at 500 mph, then having thousands of tons of debris fall on it, and then burning in a pile for up to 99 days? Are your powers of observation that good?

 

[Dave Rogers]

It is astounding that you and several other posters here have the nerve to call others delusional while writing gibberish like you are here.

If you are capable of rational discourse, please answer the following questions:

(1) What is the acceleration of an object at rest under a gravity of 1g?
(2) Is the behaviour of an object accelerating at 0.7g best described as dynamic or static?
(3) If, in a one-dimensional force diagram, an object is subjected to two forces, one of mg in the negative direction and the other of 0.3mg in the positive direction, what is the sign of the resultant force?
(4) If an object exerts a force of 0.3mg on another object while moving through a distance d, how much work is done on the second object by the first?

And, having answered them all:

(5) How do you account for the fact that your previous answers to these questions were: 1g, static, positive and zero?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here is what their goal was:

The operation at Fresh Kills had three objectives: to find human remains, personal effects, and any evidence of the terrorist attack such as a highjacker’s box cutter, cell phones from the planes, and the black boxes. The recovery operation evolved from simple hand-sorting into an elaborate machine-sifting and sorting process. All the material was carefully sorted to find objects down to one-quarter of an inch in size.

I've emphasised a couple of passages that you may want to study in a little more depth. Detonators and charges in a controlled demolition typically leave many fragments greater than one-quarter of an inch in size (that's 6mm for people who use SI units), and terrorists have frequently been known to use explosives in attacks. Therefore, your quote doesn't prove what you'd like to pretend it proves.

Dave