David Chandler jumps the shark

[WilliamSeger]

AE911T posted a new (?) video of Chandler claiming that it's been "proved" that "the top section of the north tower of the WTC could not have crushed the lower section of the building." He repeats his "0.64g constant acceleration" nonsense and now adds the claim that Szamboti's "missing jolt" analysis proves that there weren't any impacts, so there weren't any dynamic forces, so his analysis which completely ignores dynamic forces is correct. (And of course he is still claiming that this "0.36W uniform resistance" can only be explained by destroying 90% of the columns, but of course still does not have any explanation whatsoever for how removing columns could possibly produce a uniform resistance and a constant acceleration, even if he used magical silent explosives.)

But so what if there actually were "jolts" and "constant acceleration" is ridiculous in any event; "to check why this analysis is correct" Chandler shows a video of a Verinage demolition where the top of a building falls squarely onto the bottom, which of course produces a very noticeable "jolt," so according to Chandler, QED WTC = CD.

Given Chandler's and Szamboti's aversion to admitting factual and logical errors, it's not surprising to see these claims recycled, and there's not much point in shoveling through them again. But Chandler just can't seem to resist digging the hole deeper, and he goes at it with a virtual excavator.

At 4:00 in the video, Chandler claims that the Verinage video shows another "important conclusion": that the top and bottom sections are destroyed "at the same time" which "is a clear consequence of Newton's third law, which says that when bodies interact, the forces act equally in both directions." Chandler claims this is why Verinage demolitions start in the middle of the building. You might expect a high school physics teacher to recognize that the accumulating debris layer was a third "body" in the interactions, but Chandler actually tells us why he ignores it: imaginary physics! He claims that if the north tower collapse had been driven by gravity, "at most, the top 12 floors might have destroyed an additional 12 floors, but the top section would have been consumed in the process, leaving nothing to crush the rest of the building."

Yes, this high school physics teacher believes that the mass and momentum of the debris from those 24 floors disappeared into an alternate universe when the top section was "consumed."

 

[ozeco41]

I've watched the video.

What is clear to all is that Chandler and Szamboti are EITHER grossly out of their depths in both basic physics and the engineering applied physics relevant to this topic OR are being deliberately dishonest. Or both.

Tony is currently recycling his evasion of reasoned rebuttal of Missing Jolt on another thread. Chandler lacks the fortitude to come here and face discussion with the number of competent engineers and physicists we have here. AND the errors in both Szamboti and Chandler's claims are at a lower level that the more sophisticated issues where some of us differ. So we know they are wrong. They wont admit it..

The fundamental errors both of them make include:
1) The opening comments to this video by Chandler where he refers to "crush the lower tower" which is at least ambiguous , certainly misleading and probably dishonest. It is one of the same fundamental errors/untruths that Szamboti repeats. The lower tower was not crushed in the B&Z "Limit Case" style scenario. i.e. columns crushed by buckling. The global collapse progression failure occurred by floor joist shearing off the columns NOT by buckling the columns. Most of us agree that even tho' there are disputes about primacy of identification and labelling. It is what happened and I'll avoid the acronym which some regard as a swear word.

2) Errors of timing or sequence. Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" looks for an event in the future when the time for it to happen is already past. (That's one of the simplified versions - he looks for axial contact to occur as a result of "dropping of top block" when in reality what caused dropping was column failure which had already - by the time the top block started dropping - caused the column ends to by pass or miss. Ditto "tilt" not allowing missing axial contact is BS - tilt was CAUSED by column failure which lowered one side of the building - hence "tilt". So the low side columns had already missed when tilt occurred. As I said - a sequence error.)

This *.gif shows the action for WTC2 - WTC1 same principles but lesser angle.

There is simply no way that the outer perimeter on the "left side" was landing on the lower tower columns. Same for the other three sides. Same for all four sides of WTC1.

And that reality falsifies both Chandler and Szamboti's claims without going into all their other evasions, half truths and untruths.


(The video by Achimspok - still AFAIK a dedicated truther - he has done some good work. And the last time I posted his work Major_Tom tried to argue that it couldn't show what it clearly did - because Achimspok didn't make the graphic for that purpose. Go figure. )

 

[JSanderO]

I don't think I will watch this. What's interesting is that the over arching principle of the design of an occupied multi story building is that the occupied spaces are on structural floors... which support the occupants, their furniture, contents, walls and so on. All the weight (mass) of these "things" including the floor which supports them is "held" in place by a structural system of axial supports called columns. The load... total mass of the floor and contents is structurally connected to the columns designed to "carry" these loads.

If the floors fails for whatever reason... break, shatters it is no longer held up and it drops... load from the floor and contents is no longer applied to the column at THAT level. The load falls down to presumably a similar floor system below with its contents. It may be able to support the floor slab and contents dropped down on it... or not. This depends on the structural capacity of THAT floor. If it can support the additional load... the original load and the new load is applied to the column. Assuming the connection to the column can support the increased load... the collapse is arrested. The load on the column has not changed... just applied as at one location (elevation) not two.

However if for whatever reason... the new aggregate load exceeds to capacity of the slab or the slab's connection to the column... the collapse will not arrest and it will continue downward doing the same to each floor below... LEAVING behind the columns with no applied floor loads... and no lateral bracing either.

This is just basic engineering... completely intuitive and any one with a high school level of physics can understand this... and probable don't even need THAT level of education to "get it."

But Chandler doesn't. He doesn't because it would crush his idiotic theories.

If Tony denies this level of understanding he should not hold an PE license.

++++++

The only way that ANY column in a high rise can buckle is if load exceeds axial capacity (let's leave Euler buckling aside for now) and as no new loads are added to a building typically other than the live load of occupants (which are designed for) .... To exceed the capacity of a column... other columns which carried some floor loads have to fail... somehow and the loads become transferred since the mass remains engaged to the frame. These newly acquired loads would have to be axially applied - from above to buckle or crush a column. This is tricky but possible. It requires that the floor system remains strong enough to handle the fallen excess capacity and not fail adding this load to the column(s) it is connected to. If this happens on multiple levels it is conceivable though unlikely to take place... that a single column would see axial loads exceeding its capacity and buckle. When it does it likely will release all the floor loads it carried downward on to a floor below exceeding that floors capacity.

Once the floors begin to collapse and fail... this process becomes progressive and will not arrest. The floors will collapse the columns will lose bracing and be jostled free of their connections with nothing holding them laterally in place and drop.

One doesn't need to run math to know that all the structural members and connections are designed for a capacity based on assumed load conditions. If you disrupt the system by destroying some of the members , the connections but do NOT remove the loads/mass you create or or left with a system whose capacity at the beams or the connections or is below the loads.

Fire erodes capacity... load redistribution can cause local capacity to be exceeded. Partial collapse can occur of the loads which collapsed are removed from the system... or if the system's members have adequate reserve capacity to carry redistributed loads. There was partial collapse in the twin towers.... but the process of capacity erosion and load redistribution was unabated and overwhelmed the remaining capacity on the system. Then the whole thing went humpty dumpty.

 

[JSanderO]

Why / how the tops of the twin towers fell down.

Short answer: they columns above were no longer axially coupled with the columns below

There was some inevitable loss of column axial capacity from the heat from fires.

There were columns above the crash zone which had the column below severed... at least 6 of the 47.

The main mechanism for axial misalignment and loss of coupling and axial capacity was lateral displacement of the core columns above the plane strike zone where the sever fires raged. The cause of lateral displacement was heat expansion of the bracing beams pushing the columns out of axial alignment. The column to column connections were held together by splice plates fiolet welded and or bolted when possible (box section columns had welded plates, rolled section columns had bolted on plates). The end connections were not strong enough to maintain the connection alignment.

The heated beams expanded. When then did if there was no end restraint on one end... the expansion pushed the column at the other end... and this led to reduced bearing area from axial misalignment by failing the column to column splice. When the bearing area was pushed to below minimum required the connection failed and the upper column experienced web and flange crippling and buckling at the connection.

The process of heated beams pushing columns out of alignment leading to crippling at the connection progressed through the core until the aggregate capacity was below service loads AND the upper columns were largely no longer aligned with the columns they formerly had been. Then the top dropped and the columns above missed the ones below.

There was no perfect symmetry in capacity loss and end connection failures. But the capacity was lost in the center of the core beginning at the north side in 1wtc and radiated outward toward the core perimeter leaving the 4 corners at the last remaining coupled columns and unable to carry all the redistributed loads. In 2wtc the capacity loss radiated from the SE to the NW leaving the NW with the last coupled columns.... and the top tipped to the SE markedly as it sunk into the standing building below.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Gee, I thought Tony would jump in here to defend Chandler with some "honest discussion."

 

[JSanderO]

David Chandler, among other things is a bit of a coward who refuses to defend his work and simply drops it on the internet and lets his followers spread his rubbish. Few to none of his followers can or will defend it... all will pass the video around with glee as if it's the second coming of christ.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

David Chandler, among other things is a bit of a coward who refuses to defend his work and simply drops it on the internet and lets his followers spread his rubbish. Few to none of his followers can or will defend it... all will pass the video around with glee as if it's the second coming of christ.

What you are saying is not true. David Chandler has given a number of talks on the collapse of the buildings and he takes questions.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 12

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I have plenty of nerve... I am not a debunker. And I don't waste my time with people who refuse to listen. I've tried a number of times with Gage and even this past week and one of his guys from VA inserted himself. He doesn't want to know how 7 collapsed as seen.

I came to learn something new... which I was hoping to from the NJIT engineers... Unfortunately they were not prepared so all I did was see the BFT and listen to your talk and a few lame questions.

How much energy was contained in the unrecovered diesel fuel?
What happened to it?

You haven't answered this.

Surprised that I called BS when I heard it... taken aback? Take your pick.. I didn't want to let that go unchallenged.

It was hardly a challenge as nobody in the audience knew what you were talking about and I was not talking BS. My point involved the fact that column 79 could not have collapsed the way the NIST report says it did. If you wanted to talk about the transfer trusses between floors 5 and 6 you should have brought it up in the Q&A. You saw me engaging the questioners and discussing things and there would have been no reason I wouldn't have done that with you. Unfortunately, your one outburst wasn't a single event. You also blurted something out during the Q&A while standing far back from those in line. I told you that you had to get in line and you didn't do it and walked away.

Your behavior at the NJIT Discussion Forum was inappropriate and you should be ashamed of it. You should also not forget that after the talks bout 95% of those in the audience felt there should be a new investigation when asked. You are very alone in your take on this and that is probably why you come to this den of vipers to seek umbrage.

The vast majority of the diesel fuel was recovered and that is why NIST had to discount it as a contributor to the collapse. Are you now trying to say what little may have dispersed during the collapse or may have burned beforehand did contribute to the collapse?

 

[DGM]

It was hardly a challenge as nobody in the audience knew what you were talking about and I was not talking BS. My point involved the fact that column 79 could not have collapsed the way the NIST report says it did. If you wanted to talk about the transfer trusses between floors 5 and 6 you should have brought it up in the Q&A. You saw me engaging the questioners and discussing things and there would have been no reason I wouldn't have done that with you. Unfortunately, your one outburst wasn't a single event. You also blurted something out during the Q&A while standing far back from those in line. I told you that you had to get in line and you didn't do it and walked away.

Your behavior at the NJIT Discussion Forum was inappropriate and you should be ashamed of it.

Can you tell us what questions you addressed?

 

[JSanderO]

It was hardly a challenge and I was not talking BS. My point involved the fact that column 79 could not have collapsed the way the NIST report says it did. If you wanted to talk about the transfer trusses between floors 5 and 6 you should have brought it up in the Q&A. You saw me engaging the questioners and discussing things and there would have been no reason I wouldn't have done that with you. Unfortunately, your one outburst wasn't a single event. You also blurted something out during the Q&A while standing far back from those in line. I told you that you had to get in line and you didn't do it and walked away.

Your behavior at the NJIT Discussion Forum was inappropriate and you should be ashamed of it.

come on Tony... a few calls from the audience disrupted the presentation no more than the fellow fiddling around with the sound and the mic. I don't care about column 79 and I am not going to present or defend NIST's girder walk off. And even of the single girder walked off 79 would not buckle. Arguing this is a waste of time.... YOU jump to CD and that's pretty incredible.

Tony... all three of the profs including the department chair Professor Marhaba PhD, PE, F ASCE were not buying your pitch. They told me.

Why can't you see daylight through the building below the top floorwhen the EPH collapse. DRAW the SIGHT LINES and you'll EASILY discover that the sky is blocked/behind the EAST curtain wall. Easy peasy and you should be able to figure that one out. Bu no you have to make you false claim that this JUSTIFIES a signle story collapse of the EPH. That is pathetic really and you are too smart to know it's BS.

 

[DGM]

JSO:

What kind of questions was Tony addressing? Were any critical of his opinion?

 

[beachnut]

David Chandler, expert at fantasy physics, and overwhelming BS. The CD fantasy BS artist.

 

[JSanderO]

Tony...
Where do you suggest someone goes on the www from the PC at home to engage in technical discussion of the collapses of the 3 towers?

I've been called shill, spy, CIA., cognitive infiltrator, intel operative... but usually stupid and blind to the truth.

 

[DGM]

Tony...
Where do you suggest someone goes on the www from the PC at home to engage in technical discussion of the collapses of the 3 towers?

You could suggest a subforum in science/tech here. It has no place in conspiracies.

 

[Redwood]

I can't see the video. Is it just me?

 

[DGM]

I can't see the video. Is it just me?

What video? There is none (as far as I know) of the NJIT show.

corrected the link below.

 

[DGM]

 

[beachnut]

I love it, it starts out, "the top section... could not of crushed the lower section of the building"... as we watch, the top part crush the lower part of the building. Debunked in 33 seconds, by the video of woo.

David repeats BS from 911 truth, like a propaganda minister.

 

[ozeco41]

Who takes him seriously he has been a typical Cter for years.

It's getting noticeably worse - insults and untruths dominating most posts when - up till recent years - he would attempt some semblance of argument.

The overall MO has not shifted.

My first post on the internet comment said this:

The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.

All of his papers, posts and claims AFAICS are based on selecting false premises which pre-set his predetermined "conclusion".* - then whatever logic he relies on - goes round in a circle to "prove" the starting point assumption.

Missing Jolt is of that pattern - forget that it came from Bazant - T Sz assumed that there was a gap for the columns to fall through - found no jolt which proved his "gap" - so actually "proved" his starting assumption. THEN a massive quantum leap "I don't understand it so it MUST have been CD." (CD to create the "gaps" in the columns.) When the correct "next step" is to check if the starting assumptions are wrong.



* The comparatively recent Sz, Sz and J paper is one exception - I suspect that G Sz may have kept T Sz "on the straight and narrow" for that one.

 

[jaydeehess]

But so what if there actually were "jolts" and "constant acceleration" is ridiculous in any event; "to check why this analysis is correct" Chandler shows a video of a Verinage demolition where the top of a building falls squarely onto the bottom, which of course produces a very noticeable "jolt," so according to Chandler, QED WTC = CD.

This is truly, truly odd.
Ok Verniage produces a very noticable jolt.

Verniage is also Controlled Demolition , it is accomplished by either mechanical or explosive simultaneous removal of sections of columns.

Therefore a Verniage type large jolt is evidence of CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, and by extrapolation, the lack of such a jolt is evidence against controlled demolition.