• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

David Chandler jumps the shark

Oystein said:
Should Tony Szamboti ever see this:

Tony, does that post above make any sense at all to you?
Click to expand...

Nah, dave hit it on the head. The way NC is interpretting the situation is that the floors destroy each other and then subtracts the mass from one or both "blocks". The problem with that however is that the "upward" or "negative" resistance from the "lower floors" doesnt have a gravitational constant acting in the same direction (gravitational acceleration is "down" not "up" relative to earth.

AND because the as built cannot be considered uniformly solid... the force of the impacts have to travel through the structure to the ground to be dissipated. Goes right back to the issue at hand though... the floor levels failed locally before this could happen. Thats in part why a progressive collapse is called "progressive"

Its interesting... this discussion because we are really dealing with a simplified scenario to demonstrate the general point and as simple as the math is NC is still having trouble with correctly interpretting it... so i consider it one of the first worthwhile demonsyrations of the CT flaws ive participated in for quitw some time
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
...He's not only basing his model on zero gravity, but it seems the lower floors are made of antimatter.

Dave

ETA: Light bulb moment! That's why the mass of the lower floors has an "upward vector against gravity"; he thinks they have negative mass!...
Click to expand...

Alas, antimatter has the same (positive or zero) mass as corrersponding matter, and it is generally assumed that matter and antimatter attract each other the same way matter attracts matter.

Perhaps notconvinced is convinced that the US military had already harnessed Dark Energy in 2001 and learned how to compress it by a factor of about ... uhm 6*1048? His faith in the government's abilities would then provide a stark and amusing contrast to his user name ;)
 
Oystein said:
Alas, antimatter has the same (positive or zero) mass as corrersponding matter, and it is generally assumed that matter and antimatter attract each other the same way matter attracts matter.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they will at least annihilate. Since Notconvinced is leaving gravity out of his calculations, it's but a small step to neglecting mass-energy equivalence, so if he can pretend that a falling body gains zero kinetic energy then he can just as easily pretend that the energy output of matter-antimatter annihilation is also zero.

Dave
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Nah, dave hit it on the head. The way NC is interpretting the situation is that the floors destroy each other and then subtracts the mass from one or both "blocks". ...
Click to expand...

That jives with Dave's intuition that perhaps notconvinced believes the lower 95 floors were made of antimatter - that way, floor and antifloor anihilate each other.

Slight problem with that of course: A floor slab weighs approximately 800,000 kg (0.1 meters thick x 63 meters wider x 63 meters deep x approx. 2 tons/cubic meter ~= 800 tons), two weigh 1,600,000 kg. Annihilate them in a matter/antimatter reaction, and you liberate e=mc2 = 72,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules of energy. That's equivalent to 17,200,000 megatons of TNT.
That almost 6 million times the total energy of all bombs exploded throughout World War II, including the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes.
And this would have happened 15 times in a few seconds, and not have destroyed the rest of the tower.

notconvinced has a bit of work to do, fine-tuning his theory! :D
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Should Tony Szamboti ever see this:

Tony, does that post above make any sense at all to you?
Click to expand...

Notconvinced's word salad is just a ridiculous attempt to rationalize Chandler's imaginary physics in the OP video. Since Chandler is the one who presents himself as a scientist and expert, rather than Notconvinced, and since he seems to be accepted as such within the "movement," I'll ask again why Tony has not made any comment on that video. Otherwise, it certainly appears that Tony is okay with ridiculous BS if it helps bring converts into the cult. Which, of course, falsifies Tony's own claim to being any sort of scientist or expert.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Nah, dave hit it on the head. The way NC is interpretting the situation is that the floors destroy each other and then subtracts the mass from one or both "blocks". The problem with that however is that the "upward" or "negative" resistance from the "lower floors" doesnt have a gravitational constant acting in the same direction (gravitational acceleration is "down" not "up" relative to earth.

AND because the as built cannot be considered uniformly solid... the force of the impacts have to travel through the structure to the ground to be dissipated. Goes right back to the issue at hand though... the floor levels failed locally before this could happen. Thats in part why a progressive collapse is called "progressive"
Click to expand...

Detail: To point out that the 'upward force vector" of the pristine building acts through the vertical load bearing structural components. All downward gravitational forces in the designed structure must be brought/transferred/transmitted to those components. Thus the structure stands. Once collapse began, that ordered, engineered transfer of forces was out the picture wrt the forces generated by the falling upper section

Its interesting... this discussion because we are really dealing with a simplified scenario to demonstrate the general point and as simple as the math is NC is still having trouble with correctly interpreting it..
Click to expand...
Yes, and this gets lost on many people. Hoomans have trouble conceptualizing extremely complex events. So we simplify and approximate. We can learn just how much certain mechanisms dominated the event by doing this but have to keep in mind the whole, real, event.
 
Unlike you ...snip..., I actually work with antimatter and am quite aware of it's 1022kev energy release.

You make me wonder why I've ever thrown the 'pardon' word around.

The kinetic energy is lost in heat and deformation. As your dynamic forces deplete, you're left with the same structural loads that the towers carried for 30+ years.

...snip....


Sent from our shared looking glass platform

Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Notconvinced said:
Unlike you ...snip...,
Click to expand...
Edited by jsfisher: 
Moderated content redacted.


Love it..............Typical "truther"...........

:rolleyes:

I've got to say. Your arguments are not as ridiculous as Judy Woods' "space beams or "no planers". You're close.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Notconvinced said:
... I ... work with antimatter and am quite aware of it's 1022kev energy release. ...
Click to expand...

Prove it. Prove you work with anti-matter. Is this why you believe without evidence the fantasy of CD? Where is the anti-matter located?

Notconvinced said:
... The kinetic energy is lost in heat and deformation. As your dynamic forces deplete, you're left with the same structural loads that the towers carried for 30+ years. ...
Click to expand...

How much kinetic energy is lost in heat and deformation? The speed of collapse, the curve for the WTC towers falling matches the momentum model of the collapse; looks like most of the kinetic energy was not used up, the WTC towers continued to collapse.

Why can't you tell anyone how much energy, in joules, was used up in heat and deformation.

How much of the 115 Tons of TNT in energy, E=mgh released, was used up by deformation and heat?

Do you do math?

With 576,210,000,000 joules released in each tower, due to fire, what was used up for deformation and heat?

How is your fantasy CD going? What have you proved so far? That you don't have any knowledge of physics.
Here is proof.
Notconvinced said:
No

1/2 ((14/15)m1(14/15)v1))2=KE

Really?? :eye-poppi
Click to expand...
The eye-popping is right, your physics is BS.
This was funny...
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Yes, really. Kinetic energy has the units of mass times velocity squared; in the MKS system, that would be kilograms times (meters2/seconds2).

Momentum, on the other hand, has units of mass times velocity (kilogram-meter/second in MKS).

When you use the expression
1/2 ((14/15)m1(14/15)v1))2you are talking about a quantity that is mass2*velocity2, or kilogram2*meter2/seconds2
Pray tell, what is this new quantity you've stumbled on? It's not energy, and it's not momentum.

I haven't seen abject floundering like this in a long time. Carry on, this is hilarious.
Click to expand...

Notconvinced said:
... 1/2 ((14/15)m1(14/15)v1))2=KE ...
Click to expand...
Can you explain this in more detail?
 
pgimeno said:
Then you're not considering the reality of the structure of the towers (or of most buildings). The connections between columns and floors are much, much weaker than the columns themselves. They are designed to support the static weight of one single floor, not that of all floors above it.

One single floor. And statically, not dynamically.
Click to expand...

Again, nobody is contesting that. When you say "floor" you mean literally just the flat span of poured concrete and truss that people walk upon. When I say "floor" I mean the entirety of the space that the elevator moves through from level to level, thus including the exterior and interior support columns which your side like to pretend didn't exist. The "floor" that resists and diminishes the momentum of the falling floor above it includes all of those features, the stairwells, the machinery, the articles, etc.

If I actually believed you could somehow consolidate all of the upper tower's momentum onto weak floor joints while miraculously bypassing the outer box columns, stairwells, inner columns, etc we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
beachnut said:
Prove it. Prove you work with anti-matter. Is this why you believe without evidence the fantasy of CD? Where is the anti-matter located?
Click to expand...

In your heart apparently.... positrons man, positrons...

I said there would be less KE upon the next impact iteration, and pointed out that this would be because momentum was used up in destruction. So I said there would be less momentum. Then in typical disinfo fashion Jay claimed I tried to subtract p from KE. I used a fractional format to represent the depleting momentum in a pattern that matched Grizzle's analysis.
 
Notconvinced said:
The "floor" that resists and diminishes the momentum of the falling floor above it includes all of those features, the stairwells, the machinery, the articles, etc.
Click to expand...
The machinery, stairwells, elevator shafts, equipment, furniture, etc. were non-structural components of the building in this case. As I'm sure you would be familiar with if you studied the design. Those components really did not contribute significantly to arresting the collapses in any way shape or form beyond comprising either the means of egress, spacial separations inside the buildings and dead loads.

The core columns were also the last components of both towers to remain standing before finally collapsing themselves, so there ya go...

Notconvinced said:
...while miraculously bypassing the outer box columns,
Click to expand...
Misalignment and eccentric loading of the outer columns was documented in video and imagery of the towers. There's nothing miraculous about columns buckling under their imposed loads particularly when the magnitude of the strain is well beyond the specced limits of the design.
 
Last edited:
Notconvinced said:
Only bettered by your ability to misrepresent what I've said...
Click to expand...
Where does he misrepresent your blatant attempt to sell a "model" where you ignore gravity?

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I assumed you thought the towers were lying horizontal on a friction-less earth........hell, no one can ignore gravity...:rolleyes:
 
Notconvinced said:
This means your next impact has the KE of the initial falling mass, minus the momentum of one floor. The natural collapse loses KE with each iteration.
Click to expand...

Notconvinced said:
. Then in typical disinfo fashion Jay claimed I tried to subtract p from KE. .
Click to expand...

I quoted you directly. Is there a definition of "minus" I am missing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom