David Chandler jumps the shark

[ozeco41]

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.

Possibly you had a bit of "tongue in cheek" when you posted that but it is strictly true. And true for WTC Twin towers specifically.

The bit of irony that seems to get too subtle for many is that IF T Sz and DC were correct that there had been CD by removing bits of columns there would have been a big jolt...


...as soon as the Top Block fell enough to close the CD cut out gap.

They are wrong to assert that "No jolt == CD" - the reverse is true by their own logic - If there was CD it would cause a big jolt.

Arse about to their claims innit?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I saw the thread title and thought, "From which side?"

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

Possibly you had a bit of "tongue in cheek" when you posted that but it is strictly true. And true for WTC Twin towers specifically.

They are wrong to assert that "No jolt == CD" - the reverse is true by their own logic - If there was CD it would cause a big jolt.

Arse about to their claims innit?

MOST specifically, it applies to Chandler's example of Verniage style demolition.
In a more common explosive initiated demolition of course, there is a technique used to prevent column sections from meeting as the upper part comes down. "kicker" charges specifically designed to move the upper section to one side as the column is severed.

Arse about, or as said here, bassackwards, to illustrate jolt-in-demolition and then claim no-jolt=demolition.

More properly they should be illustrating that in several common demolitions that there is no 'big jolt'. Then they could say that if columns do not meet there will be no jolt. HOWEVER, of course, they then have to demonstrate, illustrate, beyond doubt that the greater majority of WTC tower columns in both towers would have come down in such a fashion as to create a 'big jolt'. Instead they choose to simply assert it. The graphic you posted above(and copied below) certainly demonstrates and illustrates that at least for tower 2 , this is not the case.

 

[ozeco41]

MOST specifically, it applies to Chandler's example of Verniage style demolition.

YES

In a more common explosive initiated demolition of course, there is a technique used to prevent column sections from meeting as the upper part comes down. "kicker" charges specifically designed to move the upper section to one side milliseconds after the column is severed.

yes - without the kicker the cut bit of column simply stays in place.

Arse about, or as said here, bassackwards, to illustrate jolt-in-demolition and then claim no-jolt=demolition.

It is wrong way round reasoning at several levels. As you say - showing that a CD DID have a "BIG JOLT" and then asserting that No Jolt == CD is crazy. Whether for a verinage job OR WTC Towers.

More properly they should be illustrating that in several common demolitions that there is no 'big jolt'. Then they could say that if columns do not meet there will be no jolt. HOWEVER, of course, they then have to demonstrate, illustrate, beyond doubt that the greater majority of WTC tower columns in both towers would have come down in such a fashion as to create a 'big jolt'. Instead they choose to simply assert it.

Yes - it is a different approach than the one I used but says much the same.

The graphic you posted above certainly demonstrates and illustrates that at least for tower 2 , this is not the case.

It sure does and it illustrates a few other basic points - like how progression got started with the floors shearing off from the columns and core - AKA "ROOSD" for those of us who are not scared of the acronym.

As you probably remember I've asserted that the fact that the Top Blocks (both of them) moved downwards should itself be proof of columns missing. WTC1 had less tilt than WTC2 so the distance of missing was not the 30 or so feet displacement for those sides of WTC2 shown in that graphic - but it only need to miss. No more that one column width of misalignment.

And sticking with my claim of "bleedingly obvious" - IF the Top Block is moving downwards the columns CANNOT still be in line. So they must be missing. The "trick" is in understanding how the Top Block got moving - and why there could never be one single big Bazant Szamboti style "Jolt".


PS Crossed in posting with your edit inserting the graphic. Thanks for including it.

PPS it is "verinage" - or - with the accent - "vérinage"

 

[jaydeehess]

:

It sure does and it illustrates a few other basic points - like how progression got started with the floors shearing off from the columns and core - AKA "ROOSD" for those of us who are not scared of the acronym.

Does it not also demonstrate very well that pivot caused angular momentum becomes rotation about CoG as soon as pivot is destroyed. The edge opposite tilt moves beyond the edge of the building because the top block is rotating. Thus illustrating why the great majority of the upper block mass must fall on the lower section, no falling off to the side of the upper block.
The much decried, yet errorneous, lateral movement.

And sticking with my claim of "bleedingly obvious" - IF the Top Block is moving downwards the columns CANNOT still be in line. So they must be missing. The "trick" is in understanding how the Top Block got moving - and why there could never be one single big Bazant Szamboti style "Jolt".


PS Crossed in posting with your edit inserting the graphic. Thanks for including it.

PPS it is "verinage" - or - with the accent - "vérinage"

Seems bleeding reasonable ( as in reasoned argument ) to me

Dang not only have I been spelling it wrong, I've been pronouncing it wrong too.

 

[ozeco41]

Does it not also demonstrate very well that pivot caused angular momentum becomes rotation about CoG as soon as pivot is destroyed. << Yes The edge opposite tilt moves beyond the edge of the building because the top block is rotating. << Yes Thus illustrating why the great majority of the upper block mass must fall on the lower section, << Yes no falling off to the side of the upper block. << Yes
The much decried, yet erroneous, lateral movement. << Yes

That graphic is WTC2 - more extreme than wTC1 but essentially the same mechanism - just some of the parameters are bigger.

Seems bleeding reasonable ( as in reasoned argument ) to me.

not only reasonable but - in AU parlance - it should be "dog's balls obvious".

Dang not only have I been spelling it wrong, I've been pronouncing it wrong too.

Some one had to tell you. And me the Aussie who greets kids on the school bus with "Bonjour, m'sieur. Et tu aussi mam'selle" - and gets blank looks in return. Could be the Aussie accent aussi. They respond when I say "G'dye myte". 60 years since I did High School French - my colloquial Aussie is current.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Does it not also demonstrate very well that pivot caused angular momentum becomes rotation about CoG as soon as pivot is destroyed.

Actually, I think it probably started rotating as soon as it started tilting, and the remaining columns couldn't fully resist the reaction force from pushing the CoG laterally. I believe Bazant calculated that the lateral force caused by the tilt was about 10 times what the columns could take.

 

[Notconvinced]

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.

The Chandler video is dead accurate, and once again your group rallies around a strawman. The verniage technique uses CD to remove a series of supports, which is analogous to the hypothetical removal by failure of the WTC columns of 1-2 floors as proposed by "progressive collapse" proponents. The Chandler video clearly shows an example of how a building behaves once that initial layer is removed. Since the WTC didn't behave this way, it shows that the WTC was structurally degraded below the "verniage" layer.

As I and many others over the years have stated, the upper section cannot destroy more than its own equivalent lower section. The message is clear... America is ready to hear, process, and understand the truth.

Thank you Tony Szamboti.

ROOSD = really obvious overt sequential demolition

 

[Kid Eager]

The Chandler video is dead accurate, and once again your group rallies around a strawman. The verniage technique uses CD to remove a series of supports, which is analogous to the hypothetical removal by failure of the WTC columns of 1-2 floors as proposed by "progressive collapse" proponents. The Chandler video clearly shows an example of how a building behaves once that initial layer is removed. Since the WTC didn't behave this way, it shows that the WTC was structurally degraded below the "verniage" layer.

As I and many others over the years have stated, the upper section cannot destroy more than its own equivalent lower section. The message is clear... America is ready to hear, process, and understand the truth.

Thank you Tony Szamboti.

ROOSD = really obvious overt sequential demolition

Hahahahahahahaha.... Oh dear.... I need to quote that for posterity.

You hear that? It's the sound of physics laughing its arse off at the highlighted assertion.

 

[GlennB]

As I and many others over the years have stated, the upper section cannot destroy more than its own equivalent lower section.

Apart from Ronan Point? Remember that? You were going to look into it, but never got back to us with your finding.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hahahahahahahaha.... Oh dear.... I need to quote that for posterity.

You hear that? It's the sound of physics laughing it's arse off at the highlighted assertion.
S

The point where a conspiracy theory becomes ridiculous is the point where sustaining it requires selective denial of reality. David Chandler and Notconvinced have clearly reached this point, because they're denying the reality of progressive collapse, a reasonably well known phenomenon which is specifically taken into consideration in building design. At this point they become slightly dangerous, because if anyone involved in building design takes them seriously people might die. Fortunately, I don't think that's very likely.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

... As I and many others over the years have stated,

Many others in 911 truth talk = a fringe few who offer zero evidence, but lots of BS.

... the upper section cannot destroy more than its own equivalent lower section.

Where is the math? Right, no 911 truth "expert" (aka silly paranoid conspiracy theorist failed engineers) has shown the math; why is that?
The simple math is... A floor in the WTC can only hold 29,000,000 pounds. All the lower floors will fail if the upper section mass reaches the lower floors. Thus this is wrong, the upper section is seen on 911 destroying the entire building.

... The message is clear... America is ready to hear, process, and understand the truth. ...

Big talk for the lie of CD, and zero math.

 

[WilliamSeger]

The Chandler video is dead accurate...

As I and many others over the years have stated, the upper section cannot destroy more than its own equivalent lower section. The message is clear... America is ready to hear, process, and understand the truth.

Thank you Tony Szamboti.

That reminds me: Tony Szamboti, why have you not corrected Chandler's imaginary physics and idiotic assertions? Is it because you agree with him, or just a general lack of intellectual integrity?

 

[Pinch]

As I and many others over the years have stated, the upper section cannot destroy more than its own equivalent lower section.

I'm just a dumb former naval flight officer and even I can see the utter idiocy of that statement. A mass of material, which has its mass increased with every floor it comes in contact with and destroys, will increase in weight. That's just plum common sense.

What exactly is supposed to arrest the downward movement of a mass that increases in weight - and kinetic energy - with every floor it demolishes?? Am I missing something?

 

[GlennB]

I'm just a dumb former naval flight officer and even I can see the utter idiocy of that statement. A mass of material, which has its mass increased with every floor it comes in contact with and destroys, will increase in weight. That's just plum common sense.

What exactly is supposed to arrest the downward movement of a mass that increases in weight - and kinetic energy - with every floor it demolishes?? Am I missing something?

Newton's Third Law makes it impossible, we're told

 

[Trojan]

I'm just a dumb former naval flight officer and even I can see the utter idiocy of that statement. A mass of material, which has its mass increased with every floor it comes in contact with and destroys, will increase in weight. That's just plum common sense.

What exactly is supposed to arrest the downward movement of a mass that increases in weight - and kinetic energy - with every floor it demolishes?? Am I missing something?

Its the equal and opposite -- somehow in truther world, that means they 12 floors can only crush 12 floors, the mass becomes pixie dust after it is crushed ...

 

[Dave Rogers]

Newton's Third Law makes it impossible, we're told

We've all heard the story of how Isaac Newton, while walking by an orchard, saw an apple fall from a tree on to a vertical stack of apples that just happened to be directly below it, and watched as it destroyed precisely one apple at the top of the stack without even bruising the apple below it. Inspired by this observation, he rushed home and wrote down his Third Law, stating that a falling object can destroy at most one object, precisely the same size, when falling on it. What's less well-known is how his latter-day disciple, Hermann Goering, applied this principle to the aerial bomb, realising that his Luftwaffe could only destroy houses in London, Warsaw and Rotterdam by dropping equally sized objects on them - because, clearly, if the bombs failed to destroy the roof of the building, the explosive force would dissipate outside - and thus precipitated the petroleum crisis that would ultimately bring the Third Reich to its knees.

Dave

 

[WilliamSeger]

Newton's Third Law makes it impossible, we're told

That, and Chandler's Law of Consumption of Momentum, and his famous formula: Force = mass * 0

 

[pgimeno]

The verniage technique uses CD to remove a series of supports,

No, it doesn't. It pushes the load-bearing walls laterally with hydraulic jacks, until they are out of the vertical and fall. No supports are removed.

(Edit: see e.g. this video)


It's not too different from what we saw happening in WTC2. Once the perimeter walls were too displaced from the vertical, they could no longer bear the top load and they gave way.

 

[DGM]

(Edit: see e.g. this video)


It's not too different from what we saw happening in WTC2. Once the perimeter walls were too displaced from the vertical, they could no longer bear the top load and they gave way.

Didn't you see those pyroclastic flows and high speed ejections? That was an intentional demolition therefor so was the towers and WTC7.

Nice going "debunker"................. (human resources would like to speak to you)