David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

PookztA said:
it amazes me how many people still believe that jetfuel and gravity can cause a steel building to collapse in 10 seconds when it would only take a billiard bill 9.22 seconds to hit the ground if dropped from the top floor of the WTC buildings in a VACUUM.
Click to expand...

Hush, child. The grown-ups are talking. If you want to pretend that your lies are true, start a different thread.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Good God, Tony, I didn't honestly believe you could say anything more idiotic. You're arguing that if the lower structure collapses, the upper block doesn't have any mass. I simply can't comprehend how you can say things like this.

It's perfectly simple. A mass m, under 1g gravity, experiences a downward force of mg due to gravity. In order to experience an upward acceleration of 2g - in other words, a deceleration of 2g if it's already moving in a downward direction - an additional upward force of 3mg must be applied. And that should be clear to anyone with at least high school physics training, as should the fact that the structural condition of anything below the falling mass is irrelevant to this perfectly general result.

Dave
Click to expand...

I have been talking about the total value of the deceleration or resistance from 1g as the reference point. That is what determines the load applied by the upper section's mass.

You have heard me say that the load amplification is determined by the amount of total resistance above 1g, since that just brings it back to a static load. In other words, the 2g deceleration I am talking is when the acceleration is going from 1g to -1g. In that case the load would be amplified to twice that of the static load, as I have been saying. I thought this was understood.

In the case of WTC1, since the upper section was continuously accelerating at about 0.7g, and thus there was only a total resistance of about 0.3g, there was no load amplification and the lower structure was only providing about 10% of the resistance it was capable of, since it could originally withstand about 3mg or 300% of the load above it.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
They flew planes into the buildings to make everyone think that was the cause.
...
Click to expand...
LOL, you are joking. They? Who are they? Name some names with all your ample evidence you must have some names?

What a delusion. You can't understand structural engineering, so you make up lies and delusions about 911.

They? Name they? Who are they? Your 911 truth has become a faith based anti-intellectual conspiracy theory club where you make up lies.

Thermite or explosives? Thermite in the ceiling tiles?

Who do you think flew the jets?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I have been talking about the total value of the deceleration or resistance from 1g as the reference point. That is what determines the load applied by the upper section's mass.

You have heard me say that the load amplification is determined by the amount of total resistance above 1g, since that just brings it back to a static load. In other words, the 2g deceleration I am talking is when the acceleration is going from 1g to -1g. In that case the load would be amplified to twice that of the static load, as I have been saying. I thought this was understood.
Click to expand...

But you haven't been saying that. Let me remind you, you claimed that an object being set down very slowly on a support experiences a deceleration of 1g. That's simply wrong. You seem to be trying to say that the most general and universal rules of mechanics don't apply to the specific situation you're discussing. They do.

Tony Szamboti said:
In the case of WTC1, since the upper section was continuously accelerating at about 0.7g, and thus there was only a total resistance of about 0.3g, there was no load amplification and the lower structure was only providing about 10% of the resistance it was capable of, since it could originally withstand about 3mg or 300% of the load above it.
Click to expand...

Which is hardly surprising, as the lower structure was being continuously crushed. If the time-averaged resistance was only about 10% of the maximum possible static resistance, that simply indicates that each element was offering resistance for no more than 10% of the time of the collapse. In the context of the known failure properties of steel, and of the likelihood that the failure mechanism of the structure would not allow it to exert its maximum possible static resistance, this is in no way exceptional.

And, let me remind you, the difference between an acceleration of g and an acceleration of 0.7g is proof of kinetic energy loss. Potential energy has been lost, and it can only have been converted to kinetic energy; gravity is a force. Since not all of it is appearing as kinetic energy, it must have been lost to some other form of energy. Therefore, your repeated assertion that there is no loss of kinetic enegy is simply wrong.

Dave
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It might be hard to explain how the terrorists could have planted demolition devices in the buildings.
Click to expand...

Tony Szamboti said:
Insiders would have had plenty of time and cover to plant demolition devices.

There was an elevator upgrade going on during the nine months prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

The steel corrosion protection was upgraded in the years shortly before Sept. 11, 2001.

The steel fire protection was upgraded pretty much in the areas of aircraft impact in the years shortly before Sept. 11, 2001.
Click to expand...

Thanks you have just explained "how the terrorists could have planted demolition devices in the buildings".

All they have to do is get jobs as janitors, elevator repairmen or corrosion applicators.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
They flew planes into the buildings to make everyone think that was the cause.

Interestingly, the collapses actually inititiated above the major aircraft impact damage, so the NIST was forced to pretty much say fire alone caused the collapses. The only thing the NIST could use the aircraft impact for was to try and say it removed fire proofing material from the steel causing it to heat up faster.

It is a shame they don't have any physical evidence for high steel temperatures. Now why would that be? Oh, that's right they got rid of all of the steel from WTC 7 and over 99.5% of it from the towers before it could be properly examined. You have to be nuts to support the official story when you hear that kind of nonsense occurred. Real investigations intent on finding a true cause do not operate that way.
Click to expand...

I take it then that you don't believe there was molten steel in the pile?
 
Dave Rogers said:
But you haven't been saying that. Let me remind you, you claimed that an object being set down very slowly on a support experiences a deceleration of 1g. That's simply wrong. You seem to be trying to say that the most general and universal rules of mechanics don't apply to the specific situation you're discussing. They do.



Which is hardly surprising, as the lower structure was being continuously crushed. If the time-averaged resistance was only about 10% of the maximum possible static resistance, that simply indicates that each element was offering resistance for no more than 10% of the time of the collapse. In the context of the known failure properties of steel, and of the likelihood that the failure mechanism of the structure would not allow it to exert its maximum possible static resistance, this is in no way exceptional.

And, let me remind you, the difference between an acceleration of g and an acceleration of 0.7g is proof of kinetic energy loss. Potential energy has been lost, and it can only have been converted to kinetic energy; gravity is a force. Since not all of it is appearing as kinetic energy, it must have been lost to some other form of energy. Therefore, your repeated assertion that there is no loss of kinetic enegy is simply wrong.

Dave
Click to expand...

I have a hard time understanding why people like Tony can't distinguish force and energy. I also have a hard time understanding why Tony doesn't understand that the maximum capacity of the structure is predicated upon a very set load-path and a completely intact structure, neither of which were in-place when the structure was collapsing.

This stuff is so incredibly simple.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Thanks you have just explained "how the terrorists could have planted demolition devices in the buildings".

All they have to do is get jobs as janitors, elevator repairmen or corrosion applicators.
Click to expand...

And invent silent explosives.
 
tsig said:
corrosion applicators
Click to expand...


Hey, I used to have that job back in the 80s! It was in Bridgeport, Connecticut. My crew was working plenty of overtime, believe me.

I've considered going back to it, but my skills are rusty.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Dave Rogers said:
But you haven't been saying that. Let me remind you, you claimed that an object being set down very slowly on a support experiences a deceleration of 1g. That's simply wrong. You seem to be trying to say that the most general and universal rules of mechanics don't apply to the specific situation you're discussing. They do.



Which is hardly surprising, as the lower structure was being continuously crushed. If the time-averaged resistance was only about 10% of the maximum possible static resistance, that simply indicates that each element was offering resistance for no more than 10% of the time of the collapse. In the context of the known failure properties of steel, and of the likelihood that the failure mechanism of the structure would not allow it to exert its maximum possible static resistance, this is in no way exceptional.

And, let me remind you, the difference between an acceleration of g and an acceleration of 0.7g is proof of kinetic energy loss. Potential energy has been lost, and it can only have been converted to kinetic energy; gravity is a force. Since not all of it is appearing as kinetic energy, it must have been lost to some other form of energy. Therefore, your repeated assertion that there is no loss of kinetic enegy is simply wrong.

Dave
Click to expand...

Don't wait for him to admit his error unless you have all day and then some...

To add to the above, isn't it also true that, since the collapses began asymmetrically (producing both tilt and rotation) that Tony's assertions about the static load capacity are largely irrelevant - since the structure was not a solid block, but instead relied on individual columns, then any significant asymmetry in distribution of the upper block load could overwhelm that design feature and cause failure.

WilliamSeger has a diagram to represent this effect, which of course Tony denies.

So in reality the actual load capacity of the columns was less than designed, at collapse initiation, which is why they collapsed in the first place. You had both redistribution of load paths due to plane damage, then weakening due to heat. Bingo.

I'm not an engineer but it's easy for me to understand this. These nitwits are never going to fool an impartial expert, let alone a skeptical one.
 
Newtons Bit said:
I have a hard time understanding why people like Tony can't distinguish force and energy. I also have a hard time understanding why Tony doesn't understand that the maximum capacity of the structure is predicated upon a very set load-path and a completely intact structure, neither of which were in-place when the structure was collapsing.

This stuff is so incredibly simple.
Click to expand...

He wants to believe in the conspiracy really bad, I guess. He's willing to sacrifice his better judgment in order to do that.
David Chandler's in the same boat, albeit with less sophisticated arguments.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The NIST finite element model of WTC 7 is literally an embarassment on its face. It has severe exterior deformation not seen in the actual collapse. It does not replicate the observed collapse.

What is truly farcical is the unquestioning acceptance and superficial defense of this obvious nonsense by people like yourself.
Click to expand...

I wonder why noone of you CT's have ever tried to get a license of LS-DYNA to demonstrate NIST is wrong with their own tools.
 
Myriad said:
Hey, I used to have that job back in the 80s! It was in Bridgeport, Connecticut. My crew was working plenty of overtime, believe me.

I've considered going back to it, but my skills are rusty.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

oh don't say that.

you need to look on the bright oxide of life.
 
Julio said:
I wonder why noone of you CT's have ever tried to get a license of LS-DYNA to demonstrate NIST is wrong with their own tools.
Click to expand...

Gage doesn't have anything more powerful than Autocad on his resume. Does anyone in AE911 say they know how to use LS-DYNA?
 
Myriad said:
Hey, I used to have that job back in the 80s! It was in Bridgeport, Connecticut. My crew was working plenty of overtime, believe me.

I've considered going back to it, but my skills are rusty.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

I tried it but I was too much a flake.
 
tsig said:
Thanks you have just explained "how the terrorists could have planted demolition devices in the buildings".

All they have to do is get jobs as janitors, elevator repairmen or corrosion applicators.
Click to expand...

Could be possible, so why wasn't it investigated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom