David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

I love how when we discuss basic subjects in the literature most people can understand clearly, it gets either ignored or called gibberish. What a way to hand wave one's own inability to comprehend them. And when you tell the guy to reread a passage in the report because they have not comprehended it, it's called cheer leading.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...


The structure was designed to support a load -- that is, apply an upward force -- of up to some multiple of the actual load. (You say 5x the actual load, others say less, I'll accept your 5x figure for the sake of argument.)

What it was not designed to do was apply that force over a distance.

I did some quick calculations. After the top block had fallen 3 meters at 0.5 g acceleration, a velocity decrease of 1 m/s would have required the structure below to apply its maximum force of 5x the static load, for a period of about 0.1 second, while deflecting a distance of a third of a meter. This is getting very close to Heiwa's "rubber building" territory. (See his "Funny M" essay in which the building elastically compresses 3% of its height under its own static weight, and can compress 9% before reaching the elastic limit.)

So I went to see where your paper differs from my calculations, and found that you had not even attempted to calculate the forces acting over distances involved in creating the jolts you were looking for. Instead, you went over to the energy domain, which is where things went wrong.

In your energy calculations you have assumed that when the top structure reaches the next floor below, all of the following happen instantaneously and simultaneously across the entire acre-sized cross-section of the tower:

1. every column undergoes its maximum elastic compression
2. every column undergoes inelastic axial compression up to its axial strain limit
3. every column then buckles on three hinges until squashed flat
4. every column actually does this twice, above and below the impact point!

I understand that these are analogous assumptions to Bazant's, but the difference is that Bazant was evaluating a limiting case for least favorability for complete collapse, to show that collapse is expected even in such an unfavorable case. You are evaluating a limiting case most favorable to produce a jolt.

If, after having done so, you observed a jolt larger than your most favorable case suggested was possible, then you might reasonably conclude that some other unknown factor was responsible for producing such a large jolt.

But from the fact that you did not observe a jolt as large as your most favorable case suggested was possible, you can conclude nothing at all. All it shows is that your most favorable case assumptions are too favorable and didn't happen.

This could be for any number of reasons, many of which have been discussed on this thread: the impacts were not column on column in perfect vertical alignment; the impacts were not uniformly timed across the area of the structure; the columns failed at welds prior to, and instead of, undergoing maximum axial plastic strain or 3-hinge bucking; the floors detached from the columns leaving the columns less braced against buckling. All of these possibilities are themselves supported by observation.

If you want to ascribe significance to a missing jolt, you will have to show that a jolt larger than those observed is to be expected under assumptions representing the least favorable plausible case for producing a jolt. That is, redo your calculations with an initial tilt corresponding to the tilt observed in photographic recordings, and in which the only energy absorbed apart from momentum transfer is from breaking the bolts connecting the columns to the floors and then breaking the columns at their welds. If under those less-jolt-favorable conditions you still can show an expected jolt that exceeds observations, then you might have something.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Tony,

Have Drs. Greening and Bazant actually said the thesis of your "paper" is correct? Or did they only say that they "did not find any errors which would affect the thesis of the paper?"

The difference is that if they thought the thesis was completely wrong and your work supports this incorrect thesis, then of course they would say they couldn't find any errors that affect the thesis.

Though, I have to wonder, if they thought the thesis was correct, which I would assume would make all their work incorrect, every paper they have had published in respected journals and has been peer reviewed means that all these people are wrong and you, out of all these people, are the only one who actually understands these concepts and has figured it all out. How are you smarter than all these other people? How are all these other people wrong but you aren't?

It doesn't seem logical, now does it?
 
Myriad said:
The structure was designed to support a load -- that is, apply an upward force -- of up to some multiple of the actual load. (You say 5x the actual load, others say less, I'll accept your 5x figure for the sake of argument.)

What it was not designed to do was apply that force over a distance.

I did some quick calculations. After the top block had fallen 3 meters at 0.5 g acceleration, a velocity decrease of 1 m/s would have required the structure below to apply its maximum force of 5x the static load, for a period of about 0.1 second, while deflecting a distance of a third of a meter. This is getting very close to Heiwa's "rubber building" territory. (See his "Funny M" essay in which the building elastically compresses 3% of its height under its own static weight, and can compress 9% before reaching the elastic limit.)

So I went to see where your paper differs from my calculations, and found that you had not even attempted to calculate the forces acting over distances involved in creating the jolts you were looking for. Instead, you went over to the energy domain, which is where things went wrong.

In your energy calculations you have assumed that when the top structure reaches the next floor below, all of the following happen instantaneously and simultaneously across the entire acre-sized cross-section of the tower:

1. every column undergoes its maximum elastic compression
2. every column undergoes inelastic axial compression up to its axial strain limit
3. every column then buckles on three hinges until squashed flat
4. every column actually does this twice, above and below the impact point!

I understand that these are analogous assumptions to Bazant's, but the difference is that Bazant was evaluating a limiting case for least favorability for complete collapse, to show that collapse is expected even in such an unfavorable case. You are evaluating a limiting case most favorable to produce a jolt.

If, after having done so, you observed a jolt larger than your most favorable case suggested was possible, then you might reasonably conclude that some other unknown factor was responsible for producing such a large jolt.

But from the fact that you did not observe a jolt as large as your most favorable case suggested was possible, you can conclude nothing at all. All it shows is that your most favorable case assumptions are too favorable and didn't happen.

This could be for any number of reasons, many of which have been discussed on this thread: the impacts were not column on column in perfect vertical alignment; the impacts were not uniformly timed across the area of the structure; the columns failed at welds prior to, and instead of, undergoing maximum axial plastic strain or 3-hinge bucking; the floors detached from the columns leaving the columns less braced against buckling. All of these possibilities are themselves supported by observation.

If you want to ascribe significance to a missing jolt, you will have to show that a jolt larger than those observed is to be expected under assumptions representing the least favorable plausible case for producing a jolt. That is, redo your calculations with an initial tilt corresponding to the tilt observed in photographic recordings, and in which the only energy absorbed apart from momentum transfer is from breaking the bolts connecting the columns to the floors and then breaking the columns at their welds. If under those less-jolt-favorable conditions you still can show an expected jolt that exceeds observations, then you might have something.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

In my final paper on Gordon Ross I modeled the impact as a rigid upper block and a distributed spring with mass below. The impact results in a deceleration of 80g (2.8m/s loss over 0.035s, 0.229m deflection). This is based on an energy requirement, rather than a force requirement, needed to rupture the lower columns through their plastic hinges. If I were to set a cap on the maximum force applied by the lower block to the upper block, the deceleration would be much less noticeable.

I'd like to see your calcs and how they compare with mine.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
... There is no evidence of temperatures and damage anywhere near sufficient to cause initiation in WTC 1. ....
Click to expand...

Tony, that is an utterly false statement! 'no evidence' is a complete denial of all the video and photographic evidence which shows 'damage' and apparently 'temperatures' sufficient to cause sagging of floor trusses, and inward bowing of perimeter columns.

If you continue to deny this evidence, one will have to conclude that you are either lying or grossly incompetent at evaluating this kind of evidence.

Further, you are restating your earlier incorrect claim, when I have posted relevant excerpts from the NIST temperature calculations for you.
Your statement was false earlier, and it is false now.

Here is the NIST statement, which Tony inexplicably denies they made.

'NCSTAR 1-3 executive summary
E.3.6
Fire Exposure and Temperatures Reached by the Steel
(Above 250 Celsius)
'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 of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidenceof exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.'

'Perimeter columns exposed to fire had a greater tendency for local buckling of the inner web than those known to have no exposure.'

This falsifies Tony's statement, since obviously local buckling was greater for columns exposed to fire. This is direct, uncontroversial evidence that temperatures were sufficient to cause failures.

To further illustrate the evidence, here is another paragraph:

'Approximately 18 min after the impact of the aircraft, the east face of WTC 2 exhibited inward bowing of up to 10 in. in the region of the 79th to 83rd floors. This inward bowing increased to 20 in. at 5 min before collapse of the tower.
Sagging floor slabs at the 82nd and 83rd floors were visible in window openings on the east and north faces, respectively, of WTC 2 and the positions of these slabs changed over time. This suggests a
progression of failure of certain parts of the flooring in this area of the tower.'

Tell us, Tony, what else but high temperatures could cause a floor slab to sag? Please educate us...
 
wargord said:
Tony,

Have Drs. Greening and Bazant actually said the thesis of your "paper" is correct? Or did they only say that they "did not find any errors which would affect the thesis of the paper?"

The difference is that if they thought the thesis was completely wrong and your work supports this incorrect thesis, then of course they would say they couldn't find any errors that affect the thesis.

Though, I have to wonder, if they thought the thesis was correct, which I would assume would make all their work incorrect, every paper they have had published in respected journals and has been peer reviewed means that all these people are wrong and you, out of all these people, are the only one who actually understands these concepts and has figured it all out. How are you smarter than all these other people? How are all these other people wrong but you aren't?

It doesn't seem logical, now does it?
Click to expand...

Tony has been asked about a thousand times to produce written evidence of Dr. Bazant's alleged opinion. He has declined to do so.

He also has declined to produce evidence to support his claim that Larry Silverstein admitted to ordering the demolition of WTC7.

Maybe the evidence ended up in the same place all those missing socks..;)
 
Swing Dangler said:
* 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
Click to expand...

Notice anything missing?
Click to expand...

Yes... forty thousand spent blasting caps.

That's right, forensic evaluation of the steel in order to test for explosive residue.
Click to expand...

...which consists of examination with the old "Mk. 1 Eyeball". Shaped charges leave copper residue. It would have been all over the place at Ground Zero and Fresh Kills. And no one saw a a damned thing.

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

Well... since you've failed to meet the burden of proof... how many jews died in the Holocaust, Swing?

BTW, your join date says March 2007. This is March 2010. That's not 9 years. Your inability to add and subtract single digits is noted... and not surprising.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'll tell ya what, Tony.

Demonstrate your metallurgical acumen.

Pull a steel frying pan out of your kitchen cabinet, and tell us exactly how you intend to determine the "temperature history" of the bottom of that pan.

I'm not interested in one single 900° crystal transformation set point. I want a "time at temperature" summary at all the various temperature between about 250°C and 900°C, at say 50°C increments.

You know, the specific BS approach that you are advocating ("extracting this info from the metal samples") IF you are going to play the Luddite and turn your back on tested, validated, accepted, engineering fire dynamics simulation.

Let me know your test protocol.

The fact is that the real engineers knew from the start that there was no way to extract the information that they needed, with the detail that they needed, out of cold pieces of metal. Especially after the metal had sat in a fire pit for a month or two.

The real engineers knew that the only way to get that information with the required accuracy was thru modeling.

Note that "above 250°C" or "below 900°C" is singularly useless to the stress, plastic flow & creep analyses that NIST performed. Feel free to compare those two limiting cases (derived from mud-cracking of the paint & metallurgical precipitation) to the computer sim temperature values that NIST's simulations produced.

Tom
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
It has been proven that the columns would not miss each other in the initial fall. That is what we are discussing here.
Click to expand...

Oh really? You "are discussing it"??

Please. Discuss it.

Please discuss, in detail, how the ends of the columns would not miss each other.

Please consider the bending loads that the columns were under when they fractured. Please discuss the load carrying capacity of a column as it buckles.

Please describe, in detail, how any columns are going to impact any other columns - with sturdy, robust impacts, not glancing blows - after 1 story fall. Or 2 stories fall. Or 3 stories fall.

I haven't seen you discuss it in the slightest.

I've seen you make the same baseless, idiotic assertion over & over & over & over & ...

Precisely because you realize that your entire house of cards rests on this ludicrous assertion.

Please. Discuss.


Tom
 
Newtons Bit said:
In my final paper on Gordon Ross I modeled the impact as a rigid upper block and a distributed spring with mass below. The impact results in a deceleration of 80g (2.8m/s loss over 0.035s, 0.229m deflection). This is based on an energy requirement, rather than a force requirement, needed to rupture the lower columns through their plastic hinges. If I were to set a cap on the maximum force applied by the lower block to the upper block, the deceleration would be much less noticeable.

I'd like to see your calcs and how they compare with mine.
Click to expand...


If you're referring to the results early in my previous post, I did not save the work and it appears they were based on some different assumptions than what I remembered (e.g. the structure below acting with an elastic response linearly increasing to its maximum load strength, rather than constantly applying its maximum load strength -- which is more realistic but not what I stated). I retract them.

The case I meant to evaluate was one in which the unrealistic assumption is that the lower structure should have been (in the absence of sabotage) able to consistently apply it's alleged reserve strength to the to the upper block's fall in order to produce an easily detectable jolt.

The calculation itself is very simple. I will assume an initial drop of 4m at 0.5 g (allowing for large energy losses in the initial collapse). That gives a velocity of 6.7 m/sec (v = sqrt(2as) from a standing start) after 1.3 seconds (t = sqrt(2s/a) from a standing start).

Now the lower block applies it's "resistance" of 5 times the upper block's weight or 5mg (m being the mass of the upper block) for sufficiently long to cause the upper block's fall to slow down by 1 m/s.

Net upward force on the upper block is 4mg producing a 4g acceleration upward. A 4g acceleration changes velocity by 1 m/s in (t = deltav/a) or .025 seconds. The distance traversed in that time is .025 * (v1+v2)/2 = about 16 cm.

The point remains that a structure designed to be rigid is not designed to apply forces over significant distances. (Constructed objects that are designed to apply forces over distances are generally referred to as "machines.") The above scenario is itself a limiting case in several ways. Provided that Mr. Szamboti accepts 5mg is the limit of the strength of the structure (that is, he is not claiming that columns get stronger as they plastically deform and buckle), there is no way to produce a 1 m/s velocity decrease (which is less than what his methods can detect) in less than 16 cm of deflection. And that happens in very short time. The time could be stretched out by decreasing the "resistance" force, but the deflection distance that that resistance would have to be maintained then increases even more -- hence, the rubber building scenario that Heiwa eventually resorted to. (What actually happens, realistically, is much higher forces and accelerations over much shorter times and distances, as in your calculations, but also happening locally in different places at different times.)

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
If you're referring to the results early in my previous post, I did not save the work and it appears they were based on some different assumptions than what I remembered (e.g. the structure below acting with an elastic response linearly increasing to its maximum load strength, rather than constantly applying its maximum load strength -- which is more realistic but not what I stated). I retract them.

The case I meant to evaluate was one in which the unrealistic assumption is that the lower structure should have been (in the absence of sabotage) able to consistently apply it's alleged reserve strength to the to the upper block's fall in order to produce an easily detectable jolt.

The calculation itself is very simple. I will assume an initial drop of 4m at 0.5 g (allowing for large energy losses in the initial collapse). That gives a velocity of 6.7 m/sec (v = sqrt(2as) from a standing start) after 1.3 seconds (t = sqrt(2s/a) from a standing start).

Now the lower block applies it's "resistance" of 5 times the upper block's weight or 5mg (m being the mass of the upper block) for sufficiently long to cause the upper block's fall to slow down by 1 m/s.

Net upward force on the upper block is 4mg producing a 4g acceleration upward. A 4g acceleration changes velocity by 1 m/s in (t = deltav/a) or .025 seconds. The distance traversed in that time is .025 * (v1+v2)/2 = about 16 cm.

The point remains that a structure designed to be rigid is not designed to apply forces over significant distances. (Constructed objects that are designed to apply forces over distances are generally referred to as "machines.") The above scenario is itself a limiting case in several ways. Provided that Mr. Szamboti accepts 5mg is the limit of the strength of the structure (that is, he is not claiming that columns get stronger as they plastically deform and buckle), there is no way to produce a 1 m/s velocity decrease (which is less than what his methods can detect) in less than 16 cm of deflection. And that happens in very short time. The time could be stretched out by decreasing the "resistance" force, but the deflection distance that that resistance would have to be maintained then increases even more -- hence, the rubber building scenario that Heiwa eventually resorted to. (What actually happens, realistically, is much higher forces and accelerations over much shorter times and distances, as in your calculations, but also happening locally in different places at different times.)

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

If the upper one-tenth of the building fell the few feet onto the lower nine-enths of the building without any of its perimeter walls overlapping those of the lower nine-tenths then that must neccessarily mean that the collapse initially involved mostly column-on-column contacts . Would this not have caused a shattering impact and a clearly visible jolt ?

Without this jolt in the case of column-on-column initial contacts must mean that the lower contacted columns were already in motion downwards surely ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
If the upper one-tenth of the building fell the few feet onto the lower nine-enths of the building without any of its perimeter walls overlapping those of the lower nine-tenths then that must neccessarily mean that the collapse initially involved mostly column-on-column contacts . Would this not have caused a shattering impact and a clearly visible jolt ?

Without this jolt in the case of column-on-column initial contacts must mean that the lower contacted columns were already in motion downwards surely ?
Click to expand...

1EMC2einstein.jpg

Do you have any expertise in anything related to science? Your posts are total nonsense.

And your failed ideas seem to sucking the building in!
Sag1.jpg

column-on-column
Click to expand...
why are the outer columns bending in? Does this mean they are column on column bending down on each other sideways? What engineering school did you go to?

You sure do support the most idiotic lies 911 truth has with nonsensical talk? 8 years of failure is 911 truth, you guys are sinking into delusions faster than free-fall.
 
bill smith said:
If the upper one-tenth of the building fell the few feet onto the lower nine-enths of the building without any of its perimeter walls overlapping those of the lower nine-tenths then that must neccessarily mean that the collapse initially involved mostly column-on-column contacts . Would this not have caused a shattering impact and a clearly visible jolt ?
Click to expand...


No.

Without this jolt in the case of column-on-column initial contacts must mean that the lower contacted columns were already in motion downwards surely ?
Click to expand...


No. And don't call me Shirley.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Oh nice, thanks! I was wondering because of the date Chandler posted the video on youtube, 02/12/2010.
 
Hokulele said:
The NIST response was from 2009, so Chandler got it wrong, provided his claim matches the date of the video post.
Click to expand...
On 03.03.2010 Richard Gage gave an interview in Boston. In that interview he says that NIST are refusing to release the data needed to accurately reproduce their computer model of the collapse of WTC7. For 'Reasons of the public safety' or some such nonsensical NIST rubbish.



http://www.gators911truth.org/MOV-GAGE-WBZ.html audio
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom