David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, your analysis and arguments would have a lot more impact and credence (pun intended) if you were to get them published in a mainstream engineering journal.

Let's just posit, for arguments sake, that your ideas are correct. This could be easily verified by your peers around the world via a peer-review process, and then your movement could take them to scientific bodies and argue that a new investigation was needed.

Having failed to do this, your cries for an investigation carry little scientific weight.

I don't see why you have to be so dismissive of femr2's chart, as it provides more details with which to apply to your models. I say congrats to femr2 for the due diligence.

I'm firmly with the others on this thread who see you and Chandler trying to argue 2 contradicting positions at once: On the one hand, acceleration at 1g would indicate zero resistence, indicating that structure had been artificially removed; on the other the fact that there was indeed resistance is used to argue that structure was artificially removed.

Richard Gage prefers to muddy the waters with the term 'near freefall', which is actually closer to 'near 1/2 freefall'.

You will have to stop contradicting yourselves if you want to be taken seriously by the engineering community.

These mini-jolts that femr2 claims to have found are on the order of 1 to 3 ft./second and are only indicative of floor slab collisions, not column impact, and thus insignificant when it comes to explaining the collapse of the lower section of the building.

The columns in WTC 1 would not have missed each other based on the actual motion of the upper section. It appears something was removing most of the strength of the columns.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Hi, Tony, welcome back. I was wondering if you had given any more thought to this question: If the diagram below were a static situation, how much of the weight of the upper block would be resting on the perimeter columns at the right:

[qimg]http://opendb.com/images/wtc1tilt.jpg[/qimg]

You gave one answer -- about a 7% increase because of the displaced center of mass -- but when I asked what happened to the load that was carried by those failed columns across floor 97, I don't believe you answered. Of course, the point is: If the the tilt meant that the load of the upper block was no longer distributed evenly across all the columns, how much "load amplification" would really be necessary?

Go over to the 911freeforum and take a look at the kinematic models and discussions there. The columns don't miss, the load increase on separate column rows is not great enough and the small amount of eccentricity would not have played a significant role. The failure in WTC 1 also happened much too fast for a gradual loss of velocity being compensated for by a continued fall.

The situation you try to present just didn't happen.

 

[walkyrie]

It appears something was removing most of the strength of the columns.

You are Right , the STRENGHT of each WTC column of the North and South towers was removed intentionally with explosives and melting charges attached to the columns

 

[alienentity]

These mini-jolts that femr2 claims to have found are on the order of 1 to 3 ft./second and are only indicative of floor slab collisions, not column impact, and thus insignificant when it comes to explaining the collapse of the lower section of the building.

The columns in WTC 1 would not have missed each other based on the actual motion of the upper section. It appears something was removing most of the strength of the columns.

It appears that assumption is somewhat incorrect. You have not properly eliminated other likely reasons that there weren't ideal column-on-column impacts.
You therefore jump to conclusions about the apparent lack of resistance.

You're probably wrong.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Go over to the 911freeforum and take a look at the kinematic models and discussions there. The columns don't miss, the load increase on separate column rows is not great enough and the small amount of eccentricity would not have played a significant role. The failure in WTC 1 also happened much too fast for a gradual loss of velocity being compensated for by a continued fall.

The situation you try to present just didn't happen.

No, my question has nothing whatever to do with the columns missing each other. (I do note, however, that the model you reference doesn't take into account any lateral movement, opposite to the direction of the tilt, that would have been produced by the top block trying to rotate.)

As I said when I asked this question before, go ahead and "assume" that the top block is resting firmly on those perimeter columns on the right, even though that's not a realistic assumption. The point is, if my diagram were a static situation, the only sensible support of the entire top block are the perimeter columns on the left and right sides, because all of the other columns across floor 97 have failed. What happened to the load they were carrying? This goes directly to the question of how much "load amplification" would really be necessary to cause those perimeter columns on the left and right side to fail, if those columns could not support even the static weight shown in my diagram.

I really can't figure out if you just don't understand my question or if you're intentionally dodging the obvious answer.

 

[AZCat]

I really can't figure out if you just don't understand my question or if you're intentionally dodging the obvious answer.

I don't know either, but it happens a lot with Tony. Notice he stopped responding to my posts also.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No, my question has nothing whatever to do with the columns missing each other. (I do note, however, that the model you reference doesn't take into account any lateral movement, opposite to the direction of the tilt, that would have been produced by the top block trying to rotate.)

As I said when I asked this question before, go ahead and "assume" that the top block is resting firmly on those perimeter columns on the right, even though that's not a realistic assumption. The point is, if my diagram were a static situation, the only sensible support of the entire top block are the perimeter columns on the left and right sides, because all of the other columns across floor 97 have failed. What happened to the load they were carrying? This goes directly to the question of how much "load amplification" would really be necessary to cause those perimeter columns on the left and right side to fail, if those columns could not support even the static weight shown in my diagram.

I really can't figure out if you just don't understand my question or if you're intentionally dodging the obvious answer.

Your diagram is not accurate. The upper section did not tilt that much before the columns of the 97th and 99th floors would have collided. The lateral movement is also insignificant at the small angles involved.

The stress on the east and west perimeter walls can be shown not to have been sufficient to cause their failure with a slight tilt. You also shouldn't discount the core columns.

A 2-D model was done on the 911freeforum showing that the core columns alone would have prevented the collapse if their strength was not removed.

 

[DGM]

Just out of curiosity:
Has Tony (or any other "truther") shown how it could be done other then how NIST/ Bazant describes it? (not forgetting that explosives make noise and therm?te is just silly)

 

[alienentity]

Your diagram is not accurate. The upper section did not tilt that much before the columns of the 97th and 99th floors would have collided. The lateral movement is also insignificant at the small angles involved.

The stress on the east and west perimeter walls can be shown not to have been sufficient to cause their failure with a slight tilt. You also shouldn't discount the core columns.

A 2-D model was done on the 911freeforum showing that the core columns alone would have prevented the collapse if their strength was not removed.

How do these issues compare with the collapse of WTC2?

 

[Jackanory]

Your diagram is not accurate.
A 2-D model was done on the 911freeforum .

And the problem begins and ends with these. If it fits - wear it. Too much time trying to prove the impossible with ill fitting cartoons. No wonder the conclusions you come to are wrong.

 

[Jackanory]

Just out of curiosity:
Has Tony (or any other "truther") shown how it could be done other then how NIST/ Bazant describes it? (not forgetting that explosives make noise and therm?te is just silly)

In a word - No. No matter how many dodgy models they make.

Mr Bjorgman and his tripod beats Tony - hands down.

 

[beachnut]

Tony edited his post after I had begun my previous response. Here is Tony's edited post:

Because I can add, subtract, and multiply.

Your paper exists in at least two versions, both of which identify themselves as "Journal of 911 Studies, January 2009/Volume 24":

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

I have been using the first of those two versions, which appears to have been the version that was originally published in the "journal"; at any rate, it is the version found by Google Scholar. The second version appears to be a subsequent revision, since it has had a "7" appended to its name. When we are dealing with this kind of "journal", I guess we have to expect that kind of chicanery.

Here is the relevant part of your figure from page 8 of TheMissingJolt7.pdf:

1.3334 20.24 31.68
1.5000 25.52 36.96
1.6667 32.56 39.59
1.8334 38.72 39.60
2.0000 45.76 44.88

That table was computed using "symmetric differencing", which has the effect of smoothing the data while halving its resolution to 1/3 second. The earlier version of your paper, which was the one I was reading, did not use symmetric differencing. If we use ordinary differencing, which preserves the 1/6-second resolution of your numerical data, we get the following table:

1.3334 20.24 ------
1.5000 25.52 31.68
1.6667 32.56 42.24
1.8334 38.72 36.96 note drop in velocity here!!!!!2.0000 45.76 42.24

Your figure 4 on page 9 of TheMissingJolt7.pdf appears to use velocities calculated by simple differencing, and shows the actual deceleration from 1.67 to 1.83 seconds, although your graph is not as clear as mine. The graphs in the earlier version of the paper were different, and appear to be entirely bogus.

More importantly, my graph displays the velocity loss (delta-V) correctly. My dashed line shows your expected loss of velocity (delta-V) followed by the 1g acceleration that would (as implied by your model) follow immediately upon the large jolt you were expecting. Your dashed line shows your expected loss of velocity (delta-V) followed by the 70% average acceleration observed in your data; in other words, your dashed line counts the expected resistance twice: once to produce your sudden jolt, and again to slow the acceleration to 0.7g.

That mistake of yours had the effect of doubling the magnitude of the effect you have been carrying on about. It should surprise no one that your 2x factor was not observed, because the 2x factor was nothing more than your mistake. What surprised me is that the 1x factor you had calculated really is observed in your data (to within quantization error) when the data are graphed honestly and competently.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5544701#post5544701
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5549216&postcount=1213

Nice work. I will check this against my momentum model to see if the velocities are close. I got 12.08 seconds for collapse time with a simple model.

...
A 2-D model was done on the 911freeforum showing that the core columns alone would have prevented the collapse if their strength was not removed.

Wrong, there is no lateral support for the core when the shell does this due to the problems with fire and the floors.

The WTC tower is a system. You can model all you want, but if it has no use in the real world it is bogus. Since the shell is compromised the core is doomed. The shell is the lateral support for the core and the floor were the connection. Think system. While simple momentum models can match the collapse times, your modeling of the core by itself has no practical meaning in the real world, except the WTC towers as a system were extremely strong. If your work is indicative of Gage's gang of 1000, then 911 truth is doomed to perpetual nonsense.

I think your jolt is there, but in the real world it is broken down into chaos and spread out as the collisions take place and the few seconds of creep are totally ignored as the beginning of the collapse.

Poor David failed to debate his ideas. Why don't you go to the schools and have a sit down with structural engineers and learn why you are wrong? Is all of 911 truth so far in the paranoid conspiracy theorist fringe you can't talk to experts in structural engineering? Why waste 8 more years, you could have had a PhD in structural engineering but instead you are chasing delusions of explosives, or even a dumber idea, thermite.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Your diagram is not accurate. The upper section did not tilt that much before the columns of the 97th and 99th floors would have collided.

Go ahead and redo my drawing with whatever angle you like, and my question remains: How much of the static weight of the upper block would be on those perimeter columns on the right? My diagram does not need to be very accurate to illustrate the point, which is that if there was any tilt at all, then your assumption about "load amplification" being necessary is completely invalid, because the columns below can no longer act all together to resist the fall.

I can't see any reason to go into the rest of your analysis while this glaring error in logic exists, but nonetheless...

The lateral movement is also insignificant at the small angles involved.

Proof by assertion? Maybe if you can tell me how much it was, I can judge for myself how "insignificant" it was?

The stress on the east and west perimeter walls can be shown not to have been sufficient to cause their failure with a slight tilt.

Really? Please do show that, then.

You also shouldn't discount the core columns.

Well, in my diagram, I'm "discounting the core columns" at floor 97 because they've already failed, and I'm "discounting the core columns" at floor 96 because they haven't yet come into play to resist the falling block. Can you or can you not explain why I shouldn't do that?

A 2-D model was done on the 911freeforum showing that the core columns alone would have prevented the collapse if their strength was not removed.

Well, some of their strength was removed at the level the where the collapse began, so what's your point? (That's not an invitation to again ignore my point above, btw.)

 

[DGM]

In a word - No. No matter how many dodgy models they make.

Mr Bjorgman and his tripod beats Tony - hands down.

That's just sad.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It seems Tony missed this post...

Tony edited his post after I had begun my previous response. Here is Tony's edited post:

Because I can add, subtract, and multiply.

Your paper exists in at least two versions, both of which identify themselves as "Journal of 911 Studies, January 2009/Volume 24":

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

I have been using the first of those two versions, which appears to have been the version that was originally published in the "journal"; at any rate, it is the version found by Google Scholar. The second version appears to be a subsequent revision, since it has had a "7" appended to its name. When we are dealing with this kind of "journal", I guess we have to expect that kind of chicanery.

Here is the relevant part of your figure from page 8 of TheMissingJolt7.pdf:

1.3334 20.24 31.68
1.5000 25.52 36.96
1.6667 32.56 39.59
1.8334 38.72 39.60
2.0000 45.76 44.88

That table was computed using "symmetric differencing", which has the effect of smoothing the data while halving its resolution to 1/3 second. The earlier version of your paper, which was the one I was reading, did not use symmetric differencing. If we use ordinary differencing, which preserves the 1/6-second resolution of your numerical data, we get the following table:

1.3334 20.24 ------
1.5000 25.52 31.68
1.6667 32.56 42.24
1.8334 38.72 36.96 note drop in velocity here!!!!!2.0000 45.76 42.24

Your figure 4 on page 9 of TheMissingJolt7.pdf appears to use velocities calculated by simple differencing, and shows the actual deceleration from 1.67 to 1.83 seconds, although your graph is not as clear as mine. The graphs in the earlier version of the paper were different, and appear to be entirely bogus.

More importantly, my graph displays the velocity loss (delta-V) correctly. My dashed line shows your expected loss of velocity (delta-V) followed by the 1g acceleration that would (as implied by your model) follow immediately upon the large jolt you were expecting. Your dashed line shows your expected loss of velocity (delta-V) followed by the 70% average acceleration observed in your data; in other words, your dashed line counts the expected resistance twice: once to produce your sudden jolt, and again to slow the acceleration to 0.7g.

That mistake of yours had the effect of doubling the magnitude of the effect you have been carrying on about. It should surprise no one that your 2x factor was not observed, because the 2x factor was nothing more than your mistake. What surprised me is that the 1x factor you had calculated really is observed in your data (to within quantization error) when the data are graphed honestly and competently.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5544701#post5544701
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5549216&postcount=1213

 

[DGM]

How much of the static weight of the upper block would be on those perimeter columns on the right?

Just so I can be clear in my mind. In order for the top to "tilt" the columns on the right (as you say) would have to bear the entire weight of the upper block, thus creating a "hinge". Correct?

ETA I'm not an engineer (just a guy that builds what they design)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Mr Bjorgman and his tripod beats Tony - hands down.

I think Bjorkman's in good company... That's right, not only does Chandler claim that the WTC cannot have collapsed, but also that:

"A small section of a structure, consisting of a few floors, cannot one-way crush-down a significantly larger lower section of same structure by gravity alone."

In other words, [top-down] progressive collapse is not possible via gravity alone.
Of course given the treatment of the masses at the beginning of the paper, it wasn't hard to surmise this is what he was getting at.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Just so I can be clear in my mind. In order for the top to "tilt" the columns on the right (as you say) would have to bear the entire weight of the upper block, thus creating a "hinge". Correct?

In my diagram, I'm showing that all of the columns across floor 97 have failed except for the "hinge" of the perimeter columns on the left. If you could gently lower the top block so there were no dynamic forces involved, then all of the weight of the top block would then be resting on the perimeter columns at the left at floor 97 and the perimeter columns on the right at floor 96. But if those columns could not even support the static weight of the load that would be on them at this point, then there is no reason to think they would decelerate a falling top block, i.e. those perimeter columns on the right would fail without causing any "jolt" to the top block. When they failed, the core columns on the right side of the core would meet the same fate, and so forth across that level. The point is, there would not need to be any "jolt" if there was never any time when the columns below were offering more resistance than the static load of the top block, because only a subset of the columns were being "attacked" at any given instant.

 

[walkyrie]

"assume"that the top block is resting firmly on those perimeter columns on the right, even though that's not a realistic assumption. The point is, if my diagram were a static situation, the only sensible support of the entire top block are the perimeter columns on the left and right sides, because all of the other columns across floor 97 have failed.

.

You are RIGHT , the strenght of internal 48 SUPER STRONG and EXTRA reinforced core columns of the WTC was REMOVED with remote controlled melting THERMITE/THERMATE charges

 

[DGM]

You are RIGHT , the strenght of internal 48 SUPER STRONG and EXTRA reinforced core columns of the WTC were REMOVED with controlled melting THERMITE/THERMATE charges

Your high!