David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

Grizzly Bear said:
That would refer to the collapse initiation only. It's more than sufficiently explained by the uneven redistribution of loads and the reduction in load bearing capacity from the exposure to high temperatures. The combination lead to creeping of the structure that made it unstable. Providing you in fact read the NIST report with out cherrypicking it, this is a pretty straightforward answer. Of coarse I know already you will not be revising your assertion on the fires, so don't even bring it up.

Once the upper mass began moving, all failures of the structure were from very high, localized impact loads AKA dynamic loads. This is what you're apparently... egregiously avoiding.
Click to expand...

The failure from south to north of the 98th floor in WTC 1 occurred in less than 0.7 seconds so the separate discreet impacts would have been compensated for by the continuing fall theory doesn't work. There should have been significant velocity loss and there wasn't.

Additionally, the 98th floor had almost no aircraft impact damage and the first floors to fail after it were above it which had no damage at all and less fire.

The NIST does a gigantic hand wave to go from their south wall failed postulation to their claim that the instability then propagated across the entire building. Their analysis does not show anywhere near high enough stresses on the columns of the east and west walls to cause their failure and their core column creep analysis does not provide the stresses required for a core failure mechanism.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The failure from south to north of the 98th floor in WTC 1 occurred in les than 0.7 seconds so the separate discreet impacts would have been compensated for by the continuing fall theory doesn't work.

Additionally, the 98th floor had almost no aircraft impact damage and the first floors to fail after it were above it which had no damage at all and less fire.

The NIST does a gigantic hand wave to go from their south wall failed and then the instability propagated across the entire building. Their analysis does not show anywhere near high enough stresses on the columns of the east and west walls to cause their failure.
Click to expand...

You are saying unprotected steel can hold up in fires? Why protect it?

you fail, steel does not do well with fire

NotMelted.jpg

Warped and bent, it failed, due to fire, you are not a structural engineer, and if you are you should keep it a secret.

Fire destroys the strength of steel quickly, this is why you have to insulate it.
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for rule 12.

woodsteelfire.jpg

Steel, it fails in fire. You failed with your real-cd-deal. After 8 years you offer zero evidence for a new investigation. Good work.

Are you saying the aircraft impacts of 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT KE did not knock off the insulation?

OOPS
WTCcladdingflying.jpg

Impacts did knock off insulation. Darn I was checking for you, but I see major damage. And I have use my fist to destroy wall board which was used and under the floors the insulation would flake off by using a finger.

Do you support the idiotic notion of thermite in the Ceiling tiles like Jones does?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
beachnut said:
You are saying unprotected steel can hold up in fires? Why protect it?

you fail, steel does not do well with fire

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/NotMelted.jpg
Warped and bent, it failed, due to fire, you are not a structural engineer, and if you are you should keep it a secret.

Fire destroys the strength of steel quickly, this is why you have to insulate it.
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for response to modded post.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodsteelfire.jpg
Steel, it fails in fire. You failed with your real-cd-deal. After 8 years you offer zero evidence for a new investigation. Good work.

Are you saying the aircraft impacts of 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT KE did not knock off the insulation?

OOPS
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WTCcladdingflying.jpg
Impacts did knock off insulation. Darn I was checking for you, but I see major damage. And I have use my fist to destroy wall board which was used and under the floors the insulation would flake off by using a finger.

Do you support the idiotic notion of thermite in the Ceiling tiles like Jones does?
Click to expand...

I would be embarassed to keep showing those puny 1/8 inch wall thickness 4 inch I-beams you keep showing. The heat capacity of the columns in the towers was orders of magnitude greater than what they had.

Part of your delusion is that the aircraft impacts had anything to do with the collapses. As for fire causing the collapses, the NIST analysis of the small amount of steel they did get does not show the steel experienced high enough temperatures to even weaken it.

Sorry Beachnut, but the present official government analysis and explanation for those collapses is not convincing at all. We need a new investigation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tony Szamboti said:
If I put a 100 lb weight on a column which can only withstand a static load of 50 lbs would you call that dynamic loading or would you say it failed due to the static load?

Additionally, in this case there will be some resistance and the weight will not fall at 9.81 m/s/s.

What seems to have happened in the towers is that the strength of the columns below was removed to the point where they could not resist the static load above them.
Click to expand...



“A static load is one which does not vary. A dynamic load is one which changes with time. If it changes slowly, the structure's response may be determined with static analysis, but if it varies quickly (relative to the structure's ability to respond), the response must be determined with a dynamic analysis.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_dynamics

1. If I put a 100 lb weight on a column which can only withstand a static load of 50 lbs slowly such as by placing it atop the column, this is a dynamic load because the load on the column changes with time. I can remove the load and reapply it at intervals. If the load imposition changes slowly, the structure's response may be determined with static analysis, but the load remains a dynamic load that can be calculated with static analysis.

2. If I put a 100 lb weight on a column which can only withstand a static load of 50 lbs quickly such as by dropping it 12 feet ,this is a dynamic load because the load on the column changes with time. If the load imposition varies quickly (relative to the structure's ability to respond), the response must be determined with a dynamic analysis. This load is a dynamic load and must be calculated with a dynamic analysis.

3. In the WTC 1,2 the loads from the collapse above were changing quickly with time and were therefore dynamic loads that need to be calculated with dynamic analysis.

4. TS is wrong in claiming the falling WTC loads were static ones and not dynamic ones . His static analysis using static load bearing capabilities of the columns below the collapse is wrong. Once again.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I... orders of magnitude greater than ...
Click to expand...
So the WTC has special steel that does not fail in fire. ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE; cool. AN engineering like term from the never published 911 delusions author.

Prove it. Prove
heat capacity of the columns in the towers was orders of magnitude greater
Click to expand...
Post the numbers. Show us.

NotMelted.jpg

No warped steel from fire here? OOPS, WTC steel bent in fire. Darn, orders of magnitude down the drain.

Office fires damage steel.
onemeridiansag.jpg

No damage in the building to the fire proofing but the building failed in fire and was taken down. (hi-rise)

Real fire, real steel, fails.
 
Last edited:
BasqueArch said:
“A static load is one which does not vary. A dynamic load is one which changes with time. If it changes slowly, the structure's response may be determined with static analysis, but if it varies quickly (relative to the structure's ability to respond), the response must be determined with a dynamic analysis.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_dynamics

1. If I put a 100 lb weight on a column which can only withstand a static load of 50 lbs slowly such as by placing it atop the column, this is a dynamic load because the load on the column changes with time. I can remove the load and reapply it at intervals. If the load imposition changes slowly, the structure's response may be determined with static analysis, but the load remains a dynamic load that can be calculated with static analysis.

2. If I put a 100 lb weight on a column which can only withstand a static load of 50 lbs quickly such as by dropping it 12 feet ,this is a dynamic load because the load on the column changes with time. If the load imposition varies quickly (relative to the structure's ability to respond), the response must be determined with a dynamic analysis. This load is a dynamic load and must be calculated with a dynamic analysis.

3. In the WTC 1,2 the loads from the collapse above were changing quickly with time and were therefore dynamic loads that need to be calculated with dynamic analysis.

4. TS is wrong in claiming the falling WTC loads were static ones and not dynamic ones . His static analysis using static load bearing capabilities of the columns below the collapse is wrong. Once again.
Click to expand...

You sound confused here. In structural design and analysis dynamic loading is the term used in reference to an amplified load during an impact or when resonant conditions occur during vibration loading. In the case of impact loading the amplification occurs due to deceleration greater than gravity and it requires velocity loss by the impacting object, which did not occur in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
... Sorry Beachnut, but the present official government analysis and explanation for those collapses is not convincing at all. We need a new investigation.
Click to expand...
Your ignorance is not a need for a new investigation. Your paranoid explosives did it conclusion based on zero evidence is not a need for a new investigation. Your paper failed, David's paper is pure nuts, and the 911 truth movement failed 8 years ago.

Sorry Tony, you lack of knowledge, skill and paranoid conspiracy theories are not a reason for a new investigation in a gravity collapse you are not equipped to understand. 8 years of failure.

Was you paper turned down? David's paper is funny, I am going to show it around to real engineers so they can laugh at it. But please submit it to real journal, everyone should see the best you guys can do.

Why not submit your paper and David's to a real journal and get back to us!? Why not?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You sound confused here.... it requires velocity loss by the impacting object, which did not occur in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1.
Click to expand...
How long did it take the towers to fall? A lot slower than dropping a mass from the same hight.

The velocity of the towers were significantly lower than that of an object free to fall without interference. You fail.

The towers were not in free fall, not even close. But keep up your delusion, since 70 percent is 100 percent for 911 truth; no wonder you paper is junk.

David's paper is going to be published in a real journal? When?

The WTC is bowing, it bowed real slowly. This bowing means the tower is coming down slowly. Does this time count too for the collapse?

wtc2bowing.jpg

What caused the bowing? Heat? Gravity? There were zero explosives heard and no evidence of bombs, or thermite. Why are you making up lies? Why are you apologizing for terrorist by spreading delusions based on your failure to do real engineering work?

Why are 11 floors too much weight for one floor of the WTC?
Why were the impacts 7 and 11 times greater than Robertson's 180 mph 707 impact design? Did you know there was a study proving the WTC could take a 200 mph aircraft impact and stop the plane? Robertson was right. Why did the aircraft destroy the fire systems, and fire proofing?

8 years... And not a single reputable journal has published the claptrap you and your fellow 911 truth cult members have offered up as science. Why?
 
Last edited:
OK, Tony, I will humor you. Let us assume for the sake of an argument that a falling object hitting another object must decelerate. I am not entirely convinced it does, but let's assume it does.

So say an object is travelling at 1g, it hits another object, and slows to .6g for say, .01 seconds, before both objects continue accelerating at 1g again. Velocity is not going down of course, but the acceleration is.

Now obviously in order to measure this you are going to have to make observations at certain intervals of time. If you are only measuring it at say, intervals of .05 seconds though, you will never see a deceleration, just an average acceleration which will be something slightly lower than 1g, and you will claim that it falls at a constant acceleration.

So it seems to me the only way that you could even make this hypothesis relevent would be to calculate exactly how long your collisions would take, and then make observations with a higher precision. Something which I would imagine would be exceedingly difficult based off of a compressed YouTube video.
 
atecom said:
I still remember his video where he tried to asser the force of the upper 'block' on the bottom part of the wtc was less while falling than when static.
Click to expand...

It is. He's correct with this point.

That said, he doesn't understand load paths. Only the columns of the lower block can resist the weight of the upper block. The weight of the upper block was applied through the floors of the lower block, not through the columns. Hence collapse. And since the upper block is falling somewhere between 0 and 1g, the force of the upper block on the lower block is somewhere between 0 and 1mg. But it's the lower block floors, not the columns.

I don't know why there's such an inability to understand this concept.
 
JamesB said:
I am still stunned that even a high school physics teacher cannot understand the difference between a static force and a dynamic force.
Click to expand...

haa!!!

are debunkers now suggesting that static brought down the WTC towers!!

everybody knows that static electricity can't do squat!!

now you guys are the conspiracy theorists!!!

;)
 
JamesB said:
OK, Tony, I will humor you. Let us assume for the sake of an argument that a falling object hitting another object must decelerate. I am not entirely convinced it does, but let's assume it does.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to decelerate. It can, but it depends on the dynamics of the impact.
 
JamesB said:
OK, Tony, I will humor you. Let us assume for the sake of an argument that a falling object hitting another object must decelerate. I am not entirely convinced it does, but let's assume it does.
Click to expand...

Simple analysis using Newton's Third Law*:

If the object above (mass = m) is applying a force of 2mg to the object below, the object below is also applying a force of 2mg to the object above. This assumes that the lower object has a fixed support and is able to deform (like a spring).

* for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
 
Last edited:
JamesB said:
OK, Tony, I will humor you. Let us assume for the sake of an argument that a falling object hitting another object must decelerate. I am not entirely convinced it does, but let's assume it does.

So say an object is travelling at 1g, it hits another object, and slows to .6g for say, .01 seconds, before both objects continue accelerating at 1g again. Velocity is not going down of course, but the acceleration is.

Now obviously in order to measure this you are going to have to make observations at certain intervals of time. If you are only measuring it at say, intervals of .05 seconds though, you will never see a deceleration, just an average acceleration which will be something slightly lower than 1g, and you will claim that it falls at a constant acceleration.

So it seems to me the only way that you could even make this hypothesis relevent would be to calculate exactly how long your collisions would take, and then make observations with a higher precision. Something which I would imagine would be exceedingly difficult based off of a compressed YouTube video.
Click to expand...

The deceleration has to be greater than 1g to amplify the load. This is another point that is frequently missed here.

The impulse itself is too short in duration to see in video of 30 frames/second. However, the velocity loss is observable.

What we did in the Missing Jolt paper was calculate the column energy dissipation due to their elastic and plastic deformation and buckling and looked for the correlatable loss of kinetic energy and velocity loss. It wasn't there.

The only way to avoid the issue of the low resistance and lack of velocity loss is if the columns miss each other, but kinematic studies of the actual motion of WTC 1 have now been done and they show that the columns would not miss each other.

It appears that something was artificially removing most of the strength of the columns and only a small residual resistance remained.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The deceleration has to be greater than 1g to amplify the load. This is another point that is frequently missed here.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is correct. An upper block deceleration of 1g means the net resistance from the lower block is 2g, which is a load amplification. If the upper block were not accelerating at all (or accelerating at less than 1g) then there would not be an amplified load.
 
Several posts edited and a couple infracted. Asking someone if they have a drinking problem is only on-topic if the thread is about drinking. Doing so as an insult is a rule 12 violation. So don't do it.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The failure from south to north of the 98th floor in WTC 1 occurred in less than 0.7 seconds so the separate discreet impacts would have been compensated for by the continuing fall theory doesn't work. There should have been significant velocity loss and there wasn't.

Additionally, the 98th floor had almost no aircraft impact damage and the first floors to fail after it were above it which had no damage at all and less fire.

The NIST does a gigantic hand wave to go from their south wall failed postulation to their claim that the instability then propagated across the entire building. Their analysis does not show anywhere near high enough stresses on the columns of the east and west walls to cause their failure and their core column creep analysis does not provide the stresses required for a core failure mechanism.
Click to expand...
Ya know tony. I am reminded of something my professors used to say in class.

PROVE IT.

Now, the easiest way to do that and shut up ALL of these critics would be just to get your theories published in any peer reviewed journal.

Why won't you do that?

I mean, I have 3 publications on my CV (in three different fields) over the last 8 years. I'm sure that if your theories are correct you can easily show how NIST is wrong, where they are wrong, and how your theories are right. Writing that paper should already be done (because you keep bleating on about it), so you should submit it, and in the next 3 months or so have it published.

Feel free. I for one would LOVE to read any twoof peer reviewed journal articles.

Instead you waste your time on this forum and others... why is that? I mean you have revolutionary data (according to you). You have proof that it didn't happen like the common narrative and over 75 peer reviewed engineering journals state. Yet instead of slaving away in your home, making sure your assumptions are correct, double and triple checking your data and conclusions.... you are posting drivel on internet forums...
 
AZCat said:
I don't think this is correct. An upper block deceleration of 1g means the net resistance from the lower block is 2g, which is a load amplification. If the upper block were not accelerating at all (or accelerating at less than 1g) then there would not be an amplified load.
Click to expand...

If the upper block only decelerates at 1g then the force applied is equal to the static load. If it decelerates at less than 1g then the force applied is less than the static load. Remember F = ma.

In order to get an amplification the deceleration needs to be greater than 1g.

If the deceleration were 2g then the force applied would be twice the static load.
 
Last edited:
JamesB said:
The amusing thing is we have been putting up with these idiotic "Free fall" or even "at the speed of gravity" or my favorite "faster than the speed of gravity". Now that they actually bother to measure the collapse and find that it was significantly slower than free fall, they argue that could not have happened either. Apparently the new law of falling bodies is, "things cannot fall".
Click to expand...
Chandler's problem is he's looking at the net acceleration and then directly translating that to the weight. Impact loading isn't calculated that way. Weight is one thing, instantaneous loading is another.

TS seems to know this but nevertheless chooses to give the same treatment to his model. As to why it doesn't significantly decelerate or stop; in a normal column you try to give the load a direct path to the ground, the upper mass of the WTC was rotating adding HUGE out of plane forces to columns at the collapse inferface. These columns were designed to add stability and resist distributed wind loads, not a giant piece of damn tower tipping over on it.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The impulse itself is too short in duration to see in video of 30 frames/second. However, the velocity loss is observable.

What we did in the Missing Jolt paper was calculate the column energy dissipation due to their elastic and plastic deformation and buckling and looked for the correlatable loss of kinetic energy and velocity loss. It wasn't there.
Click to expand...
The highlighted sentence is false.

Tony's own data show the velocity loss he had calculated, to within quantization error. The graphs in Tony's paper are not consistent with Tony's numerical data, and Tony has been using his bogus graphs to deny the loss of velocity.

That Tony continues to deny these facts says something about Tony, but nothing about what happened on 11 September 2001.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
The highlighted sentence is false.

Tony's own data show the velocity loss he had calculated, to within quantization error. The graphs in Tony's paper are not consistent with Tony's numerical data, and Tony has been using his bogus graphs to deny the loss of velocity.

That Tony continues to deny these facts says something about Tony, but nothing about what happened on 11 September 2001.
Click to expand...

The numerical data in the Missing Jolt paper does not show a velocity loss at any time. Take a look at the table on page 8 here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf and show me where in the third column there is a velocity loss. The velocity is always increasing with time. How you can say otherwise is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
If the upper block only decelerates at 1g then the force applied is equal to the static load. If it decelerates at less than 1g then the force applied is less than the static load. Remember F = ma.
Click to expand...

Sure. Let's say it needs to decelerate at 3g in order to overcome the resistance of the lower block. How long do you think the lower columns would hold up if the upper block decelerated at, say 30g, exerting a force ten times beyond what the impacted floor could hope to survive?

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
Sure. Let's say it needs to decelerate at 3g in order to overcome the resistance of the lower block. How long do you think the lower columns would hold up if the upper block decelerated at, say 30g, exerting a force ten times beyond what the impacted floor could hope to survive?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

I would certainly say the columns would fail with the deceleration produced overload you mention. But again the only type of load amplification mechanism available (deceleration due to impact) requires velocity loss which is not observed.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I would certainly say the columns would fail with the deceleration produced overload you mention. But again the only type of load amplification mechanism available (deceleration due to impact) requires velocity loss which is not observed.
Click to expand...

Correct. Now, assuming such an impact would take 0.001s, whereas you're sampling only every 0.05s. The deceleration will take place, but since the upper block will accelerate more in the 0.049s than it will decelerate in the 0.001s, you'll register only a decrease in deceleration in one data point - which is exactly what the data you have shows.

Feel free to try to correct me if you think I'm wrong :rolleyes:

McHrozni
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If the upper block only decelerates at 1g then the force applied is equal to the static load. If it decelerates at less than 1g then the force applied is less than the static load. Remember F = ma.

In order to get an amplification the deceleration needs to be greater than 1g.

If the deceleration were 2g then the force applied would be twice the static load.
Click to expand...

No. If the upper block has no acceleration/deceleration, then the force applied is equal to mg (a load equivalent to the static load). Draw a free body diagram. Any deceleration of the upper block means the force applied is greater than the static load.
 
AZCat said:
No. If the upper block has no acceleration/deceleration, then the force applied is equal to mg (a load equivalent to the static load). Draw a free body diagram. Any deceleration of the upper block means the force applied is greater than the static load.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

If the deceleration is just g then the force is F = mg and the same as the static load. To get an amplification to twice the static load you need F = m x 2g.

It sounds like you are confused about what is happening at rest. Why is the static load equal to mg?
 
Last edited:
Again, without getting dragged into the wider conversation, we've developed tracing techniques that allow for much higher fidelity graphing of the Sauret footage to be performed...
378476413.jpg

Original Size

Graph axis units are ft and seconds, and apply to the smooth position curve.

The other line is a 9-sample symmetric difference velocity graph, correctly synched along the time axis, but with arbitary vertical axis.

Very similar results have been presented by another user, with both showing the early velocity loss.

Am not going to get into discussion of the missing jolt here, but simply present these clear *mini jolts* to clarify that increasing the trace quality does show additional detail.
 
JamesB said:
Ouch, whip, meet rented mule.
Click to expand...

Now you guys are trying to get creative and twist things around with no basis in reality.

I guess you need to when you don't have an argument.

I think I have answered your original post here James and shown that what you are saying there is not applicable to the issue. Better luck next time.
 
femr2 said:
Again, without getting dragged into the wider conversation, we've developed tracing techniques that allow for much higher fidelity graphing of the Sauret footage to be performed...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/378476413.jpg[/qimg]
Original Size

Graph axis units are ft and seconds, and apply to the smooth position curve.

The other line is a 9-sample symmetric difference velocity graph, correctly synched along the time axis, but with arbitary vertical axis.

Very similar results have been presented by another user, with both showing the early velocity loss.

Am not going to get into discussion of the missing jolt here, but simply present these clear *mini jolts* to clarify that increasing the trace quality does show additional detail.
Click to expand...

These alleged mini-jolts are only indicative of floor collisions due to conservation of momentum and do not account for column strikes.

You really should give it up femr.
 
Actually, unless I am missing something, this paper says absolutely nothing about the precision of his observations or measurements. That type of thing is not allowed even in economics or finance papers, which aren't even real science. Epic fail.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You are wrong.

If the deceleration is just g then the force is F = mg and the same as the static load. To get an amplification to twice the static load you need F = m x 2g.

It sounds like you are confused about what is happening at rest. Why is the static load equal to mg?
Click to expand...

No Tony, you are wrong and this is why there is no point in discussing engineering issues with you. If you can't draw a free body diagram and see where you have misunderstood a very simple physics problem then you aren't competent at engineering. At rest, the sum of the forces on the upper block is zero, because the gravitational force (of magnitude F=mg) acting on the upper block is offset by a force from the lower block of the same magnitude, but in the opposite direction. If the upper block is moving at some velocity but the acceleration/deceleration is zero, then the gravitational force (of magnitude F=mg) acting on the upper block is offset by a force from the lower block of the same magnitude, but in the opposite direction. This opposing force is F=mg. In order to produce a deceleration in the upper block, the force from the lower block must be greater than mg.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
These alleged mini-jolts are only indicative of floor collisions due to conservation of momentum and do not account for column strikes.

You really should give it up femr.
Click to expand...

Give up what exactly, Tony ?

The purpose of including the graph is to show that much higher fidelity graphing is possible. It doesn't change the premise of your personal opinion, but it certainly clarifies all points about data resolution.

Am not going to get into discussion of whether there should or should not be a jolt Tony, but at the very least you should appreciate that the higher resolution data actually gives you more information than your lower fidelity base data. The large magnitude velocity change you expect is not there. Several other smaller ones are.

You can choose to use the data to attempt to support your argument, or you can choose to attempt to throw the better data away, because it shows additional details that need further explanation.

Choice is yours.
 
Tony edited his post after I had begun my previous response. Here is Tony's edited post:
Tony Szamboti said:
The numerical data in the Missing Jolt paper does not show a velocity loss at any time. Take a look at the table on page 8 here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf and show me where in the third column there is a velocity loss. The velocity is always increasing with time. How you can say otherwise is beyond me.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
These alleged mini-jolts are only indicative of floor collisions due to conservation of momentum and do not account for column strikes.

You really should give it up femr.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There is a need for a dynamic event in the collapse of the towers since the structure below was built to withstand several times the static load above it.

The way a load is amplified is when the deceleration is several times that of gravity. That requires velocity loss, yet there is no velocity loss in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1.

The only way it could happen is if the columns are missed, but that has been analyzed and deemed impossible.
Click to expand...

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:

wtc1tilt.jpg


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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom