David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

JamesB · 26th February 2010, 10:47 PM

I am still stunned that even a high school physics teacher cannot understand the difference between a static force and a dynamic force. I haven't bothered to read the entire paper, but even the abstract was enough to kill a few brain cells.

http://journalof911studies.com/volum...tionOfWTC1.pdf

Quote:

The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to
have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A
downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net
force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the
weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling
block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of
the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper
block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to
crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could
not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper
block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the
disintegration of the lower section of the building.

I am not even sure where to start. If no collapse can have a positive acceleration, and by definition a static system has no velocity at rest, then no collapse could actually ever begin. Therefore, no structure once constructed, could ever actually collapse.

And bizarrely based on his logic, the faster the upper section moves, the less the force it could be imparting on the lower part. It is like some sort of reverse general relativity.

beachnut · 26th February 2010, 11:16 PM

He seems insane, I read the paper, it appears he is insane. He makes unsupported assertions and then makes up a conclusion. He is a paranoid conspiracy theorist who is makes insane claims based on his pathetic paper. There is no substance to critique.

I hope he is not teaching anyone this tripe. How weird. Don't his peers, the idiots at Jone's nothing is too crazy to publish Journal of woo try to have some outside not in 911 truth help before exposing their ignorance? This is a strange cult, and only possible on this large of a scale due to the Internet, where nuts like Jones can run the idiotic Journal of stupid without supervision.

This is the new missing jolt, repackaged, and dumbed down for who? Does Tony know David stole his idea?

It is funny, if he did his model correctly, the velocity of collapse should be close to the velocity of the roof falling. Funny how he debunks himself between the model, and reality. lol, this cool.

David, we have models, and we have reality. To understand how reality is suppose to look compared to your model you have to have no agenda to make up stupid ideas and you have to have experience and more knowledge.

Another self debunking paper by 911 truth, the only movement who has exclusive right to the empty set for their evidence, for 8 years and going strong.

DC, by ignoring gravity makes up his summary ...

Quote:

The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the collision with the lower section of the building indicates that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward, the upper block, exerted a force less than its own static weight on the lower section of the building.

Yes! That massive object falling faster and faster, will not hurt you because it exerts a force less than its own static weight on you when it hits you! So hang in there, big objects falling are kind of weightless as I learned for David, the physics expert of all time, now moving into delusions, insanity, and fiction.

If a 2000 pound car crushes you, it will not crush you if dropped from 10 feet because the force exerted as it hits you is less then its own static weight. It is in free-fall so it is weightless, no force at all, just use your index finger to push it aside and ....

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for Rule 12.

Quote:

Once the roof line descends into the debris cloud there is no further evidence even of its continued existence. Whether or not it was completely destroyed early in the collapse is a moot point.

Completely destoryed? Vaporized? gone! Insane! Yes.

A black hole did it... I saw it on Star Trek, it was red matter, or something! ask my grandson, he slept through it.

A W Smith · 27th February 2010, 12:18 AM

http://academicearth.org/lectures/wo...hanical-energy

atecom · 27th February 2010, 02:36 AM

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.

moorea34 · 27th February 2010, 03:09 AM

Originally Posted by atecom

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.

That's the idea of the paper...

Lak · 27th February 2010, 03:57 AM

Quote:

A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block.

I cannot believe that someone with enough brain function to breathe can write something like this. How retarded do you have to be to write that resistance to impact = weight ?

McHrozni · 27th February 2010, 05:51 AM

His argument seems to be based on the assumption that the WTC towers were monoliths, with no internal structure whatsoever - there were no beams, no columns, no offices, nothing, just two large blocks of matter.
If that were the case, his argument would be reasonable, I think. Unfortunately for him, this is a gross oversimplification, which results in the utterly wrong result.

McHrozni

Grizzly Bear · 27th February 2010, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

His argument seems to be based on the assumption that the WTC towers were monoliths, with no internal structure whatsoever - there were no beams, no columns, no offices, nothing, just two large blocks of matter.
If that were the case, his argument would be reasonable, I think. Unfortunately for him, this is a gross oversimplification, which results in the utterly wrong result.

McHrozni

That and he's doing the same thing Szamboti does ignoring that the .36mg he surmises is a STATIC weight of the building, NOT THE DYNAMIC LOAD.

None of these people are capable of distinguishing the difference, and those that do try to twist some excuse to say it wasn't there. Chandler won't accept criticism of any kind so I guess he stays wrong.

Not surprising...

Lak · 27th February 2010, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

His argument seems to be based on the assumption that the WTC towers were monoliths, with no internal structure whatsoever - there were no beams, no columns, no offices, nothing, just two large blocks of matter.
If that were the case, his argument would be reasonable, I think. Unfortunately for him, this is a gross oversimplification, which results in the utterly wrong result.

McHrozni

Not really. Assuming that the resistance is proportional to mass in that case would make sense (I think), but equal... No way.

How much something weights is unrelated to how firmly it holds together.

Tony Szamboti · 27th February 2010, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

That and he's doing the same thing Szamboti does ignoring that the .36mg he surmises is a STATIC weight of the building, NOT THE DYNAMIC LOAD.

None of these people are capable of distinguishing the difference, and those that do try to twist some excuse to say it wasn't there. Chandler won't accept criticism of any kind so I guess he stays wrong.

Not surprising...

The static load is 1mg in case you aren't aware, and the building was designed to resist at least 3mg.

Nobody ignores the resistance of 0.36mg. It is just that this shows the load purported to be destroying the building is well below even the insufficient static load. It is not dynamic in any sense of the word and your post here doesn't make sense.

AZCat · 27th February 2010, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Nobody ignores the resistance of 0.36mg. It is just that this shows the load is well below even the insufficient static load. It is not dynamic in any sense of the word and your post here is utter nonsense.

Well, then.

I guess that just goes to show us exactly how well you've absorbed engineering concepts over the years.

Tony Szamboti · 27th February 2010, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by AZCat

Well, then.

I guess that just goes to show us exactly how well you've absorbed engineering concepts over the years.

Everytime I see one of your posts I am reminded of the saying "where's the beef?". You apparently have nothing to say but nonsense and ad hominem.

AZCat · 27th February 2010, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Everytime I see one of your posts I am reminded of the saying "where's the beef?". You apparently have nothing to say but nonsense and ad hominem.

Considering that arguing with you became pointless years ago when you repeatedly proved you couldn't grasp simple engineering concepts, why would you expect me to argue about details that depend on those same concepts?

You might want to learn what an ad hominem argument is before accusing me of making one (not that I expect you to do so).

McHrozni · 27th February 2010, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Lak

Not really. Assuming that the resistance is proportional to mass in that case would make sense (I think), but equal... No way.

How much something weights is unrelated to how firmly it holds together.

Hm, yeah, point. Although if you have two objects, which are different in size, but otherwise identical, weight would be an unrelated indicator which would sustain more punishment. I think this is where the claim that the weight is so important originates from. It's a gross mistake, of course, but I find it interesting to try to find out where their 'arguments' originate.

McHrozni

Tony Szamboti · 27th February 2010, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by AZCat

Considering that arguing with you became pointless years ago when you repeatedly proved you couldn't grasp simple engineering concepts, why would you expect me to argue about details that depend on those same concepts?

You might want to learn what an ad hominem argument is before accusing me of making one (not that I expect you to do so).

Please tell me what engineering concepts I am not grasping.

AZCat · 27th February 2010, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Please tell me what engineering concepts I am not grasping.

I already did (see upthread).

Profanz · 27th February 2010, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

The static load is 1mg in case you aren't aware, and the building was designed to resist at least 3mg.

Nobody ignores the resistance of 0.36mg. It is just that this shows the load purported to be destroying the building is well below even the insufficient static load. It is not dynamic in any sense of the word and your post here doesn't make sense.

That's right.

Tony Szamboti · 27th February 2010, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by AZCat

I already did (see upthread).

You have done nothing of the sort. Your lack of detail shows you are only masquerading as though you know something.

Grizzly Bear · 27th February 2010, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

The static load is 1mg in case you aren't aware, and the building was designed to resist at least 3mg.

All Chandler did was split the weight of the building. It would be accurate providing that the masses were in static equilibrium. But in case it hasn't registered, the upper mass was in motion, gaining momentum once the columns failed. I fail to see how that is a competent assessment of the forces involved. It's not a static event even under your most optimistic assumptions.

beachnut · 27th February 2010, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Everytime I see one of your posts I am reminded of the saying "where's the beef?". You apparently have nothing to say but nonsense and ad hominem.

Poor David, at least he has you to support his delusions of a real-cd-deal! Great job of not understanding 911 for 8 years. What is next? I bet you are a JFK CTer too.

What does your school think of your paper and now the rehash by David? What journal besides the nut case woo Journal will David be published in?

I did not expect you to find the errors in Davids paper where he debunks himself, as you did. Why are you guys unable to get anything in a real journal? Paranoid much? Do you guys try to understand physics, or are you messing up to support some political agenda. Bush is not in office, are you guys anti-Obama too. Your paper and David's paper sound like a thing McVeigh would do if he were a failed physics teacher, and an engineer with real-cd-deal delusions.

Using the old high resolution video scam again, this time with David. Can't beleive he was a physics teacher.

Originally Posted by Profanz

That's right.

Look you have support from another delusion pusher who can't define his evidence or much of anything about 911. Good job, you have the zensmack clone supporting your crazy explosives did it lie made up by murdering science. Why are you making up lies to apologize for terrorists?

Tony Szamboti · 27th February 2010, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

All Chandler did was split the weight of the building. It would be accurate providing that the masses were in static equilibrium. But in case it hasn't registered, the upper mass was in motion, gaining momentum once the columns failed. I fail to see how that is a competent assessment of the forces involved. It's not a static event even under your most optimistic assumptions.

It was not a dynamic event as there was no deceleration. Please explain why you continue to think it was a dynamic event.

beachnut · 27th February 2010, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It was not a dynamic event as there was no deceleration. Please explain why you continue to think it was a dynamic event.

If there was not deceleration why did the tower not fall at speeds consistent with g? They fell slower. Do you guys do momentum and stuff? Do you use G?

The dumbest part of Davids paper is the part where he says added mass will make the force less; as if F=ma was fictional, as David adds m, the F gets smaller. 911 truth is truly anti-math, and dumber than a box of rocks with the idiotic conclusions you and David make.

Funny as heck! Now we get the 70 percent is 100! Math!

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for Rule 12.

What has made you guys make up stupid junk? What happen? Why are you and David so anti-intellectual when it comes to 911? What is up?

Tony Szamboti · 27th February 2010, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by beachnut

If there was not deceleration why did the tower not fall at speeds consistent with g? They fell slower. Do you guys do momentum and stuff? Do you use G?

The dumbest part of Davids paper is the part where he says added mass will make the force less; as if F=ma was fictional, as David adds m, the F gets smaller. 911 truth is truly anti-math, and dumber than a box of rocks with the idiotic conclusions you and David make.

Funny as heck! Now we get the 70 percent is 100! Math!

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for Rule 12.

What has made you guys make up stupid junk? What happen? Why are you and David so anti-intellectual when it comes to 911? What is up?

I don't mean to ignore you Beachnut but most of your comments, including these here, are so wrong and ridiculous they aren't even worth replying to.

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for rule 12.

W.D.Clinger · 27th February 2010, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Please tell me what engineering concepts I am not grasping.

Acceleration^WP:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1016

To be fair, you later admitted your definition of acceleration in that post wasn't quite right (

), so I'll give another example...

Graphing numerical data:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1213

Your history of engineering howlers is so well-established that you're not going to get anywhere by arguing from your personal authority. You'll have to offer a technical argument that holds up under examination by competent people, aka peer review^WP.

TruthersLie · 27th February 2010, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Everytime I see one of your posts I am reminded of the saying "where's the beef?". You apparently have nothing to say but nonsense and ad hominem.

ROFLMAO.

Hey pot... I've got someone called the kettle on the phone for you.

Please Tony.

Pretty please can you show me your (or any) peer reviewed engineering journal articles which support your claims?

Pretty please?

I'm not asking for you to put out 10,000 pages... but 8 to 20 which is peer reviewed would be fantastic.

JamesB · 27th February 2010, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It was not a dynamic event as there was no deceleration. Please explain why you continue to think it was a dynamic event.

OK, so if an 18 wheeler semi-truck ran over, say, a box of Richard Gage DVDs, and the truck underwent no measurable deceleration, than that would also be defined as a static event?

And you guys do realize that gravity was acting as a force the entire time, right?

Profanz · 27th February 2010, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I don't mean to ignore you Beachnut but most of your comments, including these here, are so wrong and ridiculous they aren't even worth replying to.

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for response to modded post.

I think he is just an angry guy.

beachnut · 27th February 2010, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I don't mean to ignore you Beachnut but most of your comments, including these here, are so wrong and ridiculous they aren't even worth replying to.

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for response to modded post.

Soda? Is drinking coke a problem? no

You and David have failed to make progress in understanding 911 for 8 years, I figured it out on 911. The Passengers on Flight 93 figured it out in Minutes; they hold the record. You and David have been apologizing for terrorists for how long and made zero progress with your lies and delusions of explosives, or is it Jones' thermite as he slips off into insanity blaming the US for the earthquake in Haiti. You and David failed, and you don't have a clue why as you publish your poppycock in a failed physics fired professors Journal of woo.

When will you and David have your super papers in a real journal?

Tony Szamboti · 27th February 2010, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by JamesB

OK, so if an 18 wheeler semi-truck ran over, say, a box of Richard Gage DVDs, and the truck underwent no measurable deceleration, than that would also be defined as a static event?

And you guys do realize that gravity was acting as a force the entire time, right?

In the case you mention the static load of the truck is far more than sufficient to crush the box. It isn't a dynamic event either.

Many of you guys don't seem to understand what a dynamic event actually is.

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.

AZCat · 27th February 2010, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

You have done nothing of the sort. Your lack of detail shows you are only masquerading as though you know something.

Whatever, Tony. It is quite evident that you don't understand dynamics, regardless of your training or experience. That's been apparent since you began posting over at DemocraticUnderground.

Tony Szamboti · 27th February 2010, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by beachnut

Soda? Is drinking coke a problem? no

You and David have failed to make progress in understanding 911 for 8 years, I figured it out on 911. The Passengers on Flight 93 figured it out in Minutes; they hold the record. You and David have been apologizing for terrorists for how long and made zero progress with your lies and delusions of explosives, or is it Jones' thermite as he slips off into insanity blaming the US for the earthquake in Haiti. You and David failed, and you don't have a clue why as you publish your poppycock in a failed physics fired professors Journal of woo.

When will you and David have your super papers in a real journal.

It is sad to say but you are really the one without a clue and are actually unwittingly apologizing for the real terrorists, who planted demolition devices in those three buildings.

There is no chance that the aircraft impacts and fires brought down those buildings and we need a new investigation.

JamesB · 27th February 2010, 09:18 AM

Hey Tony, which do you think would hurt worse, if I placed a 5lb weight on your head, or if I dropped a 1lb weight on your head from 10 feet? Why is that?

beachnut · 27th February 2010, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It is sad to say but you are really the one without a clue and are actually unwittingly apologizing for the real terrorists, who planted demolition devices in those three buildings.

There is no chance that the aircraft impacts and fires brought down those buildings and we need a new investigation.

No chance you will ever understand 911? You support terrorists by making up lies and failing at physics and engineering. Anyone at you college support your failed ideas on 911?

With impacts 7 to 11 times greater than design, you are wrong again. Fire did it, darn, you missed the first investigations and now you can your failed Jones Kool-aid cult for insane ideas on 911 need another investigation you will not understand. Wow.

Originally Posted by Profanz

I think he is just an angry guy.

You should be angry with your failed education. You also fail at understanding 911, are you zensmack? When will you loan Tony some evidence from your bag of 911 truth delusions?

Grizzly Bear · 27th February 2010, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Please explain why you continue to think it was a dynamic event.

Because static is defined by equilibrium between forces. Net forces are zero, net acceleration is zero, net velocity is zero, because none of thse are changing in the static event.

In the WTC, you had changes in velocity, net acceleration of the upper mass was positive (if you consider the direction of gravity positive). The mass was constantly changing as more floors were destroyed. The momentum increased with the velocity of the mass.

It's quite difficult to see how you're able to contest that while also stating the the net acceleration was less than 9.81 m/s/s. Aside from the treatment of the forces being grossly in error, you're also trying to have things two ways.

JamesB · 27th February 2010, 09:28 AM

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".

Tony Szamboti · 27th February 2010, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by JamesB

Hey Tony, which do you think would hurt worse, if I placed a 5lb weight on your head, or if I dropped a 1lb weight on your head from 10 feet? Why is that?

If the 1lb weight dropped from 10 feet decelerated at a rate greater than 5g upon impact it would apply more force to your head.

You seem to have an intuitive sense that dynamic loads are potentially more damaging, like most people, but do you understand why James?

Tony Szamboti · 27th February 2010, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

Because static is defined by equilibrium between forces. Net forces are zero, net acceleration is zero, net velocity is zero, because none of thse are changing in the static event.

In the WTC, you had changes in velocity, net acceleration of the upper mass was positive (if you consider the direction of gravity positive). The mass was constantly changing as more floors were destroyed. The momentum increased with the velocity of the mass.

It's quite difficult to see how you're able to contest that while also stating the the net acceleration was less than 9.81 m/s/s. Aside from the treatment of the forces being grossly in error, you're also trying to have things two ways.

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.

Grizzly Bear · 27th February 2010, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

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.

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.

AZCat · 27th February 2010, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

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

That's a ridiculous statement given the dearth of information about the column in your example. There are cases where the weight in your example would indeed fall at ~9.8 m/s² after the column failed, and without more information you cannot say what would happen.

beachnut · 27th February 2010, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

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.

There is reality. And you have your talk of explosives, quiet ones.

What is keeping your explosive paper out of a real journal? When will you guys take action?

With 1000 engineers and nuts at Gage's cult, why can't you do your own studies, most the dolt at Gage's cult signed up? What is the problem?

Why did the towers fall at a rate constant with a momentum transfer, and longer over all? You guys break me up.

26th February 2010, 10:47 PM	#1
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse I am still stunned that even a high school physics teacher cannot understand the difference between a static force and a dynamic force. I haven't bothered to read the entire paper, but even the abstract was enough to kill a few brain cells. http://journalof911studies.com/volum...tionOfWTC1.pdf Quote: The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building. I am not even sure where to start. If no collapse can have a positive acceleration, and by definition a static system has no velocity at rest, then no collapse could actually ever begin. Therefore, no structure once constructed, could ever actually collapse. And bizarrely based on his logic, the faster the upper section moves, the less the force it could be imparting on the lower part. It is like some sort of reverse general relativity.
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin- Last edited by JamesB; 26th February 2010 at 11:00 PM. Reason: typo

27th February 2010, 12:18 AM	#3
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central New Jersey Posts: 7,032	http://academicearth.org/lectures/wo...hanical-energy
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

27th February 2010, 02:36 AM	#4
atecom Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 314	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.
atecom Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 314

27th February 2010, 03:09 AM	#5
moorea34 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 157	Originally Posted by atecom 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. That's the idea of the paper...
moorea34 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 157

27th February 2010, 03:57 AM	#6
Lak New Blood Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 24	Quote: A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. I cannot believe that someone with enough brain function to breathe can write something like this. How retarded do you have to be to write that resistance to impact = weight ?
Lak New Blood Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 24

27th February 2010, 05:51 AM	#7
McHrozni Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,919	His argument seems to be based on the assumption that the WTC towers were monoliths, with no internal structure whatsoever - there were no beams, no columns, no offices, nothing, just two large blocks of matter. If that were the case, his argument would be reasonable, I think. Unfortunately for him, this is a gross oversimplification, which results in the utterly wrong result. McHrozni

27th February 2010, 07:35 AM	#8
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by McHrozni His argument seems to be based on the assumption that the WTC towers were monoliths, with no internal structure whatsoever - there were no beams, no columns, no offices, nothing, just two large blocks of matter. If that were the case, his argument would be reasonable, I think. Unfortunately for him, this is a gross oversimplification, which results in the utterly wrong result. McHrozni That and he's doing the same thing Szamboti does ignoring that the .36mg he surmises is a STATIC weight of the building, NOT THE DYNAMIC LOAD. None of these people are capable of distinguishing the difference, and those that do try to twist some excuse to say it wasn't there. Chandler won't accept criticism of any kind so I guess he stays wrong. Not surprising...
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,866	__________________ Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 27th February 2010 at 07:37 AM.

27th February 2010, 07:54 AM	#9
Lak New Blood Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 24	Originally Posted by McHrozni His argument seems to be based on the assumption that the WTC towers were monoliths, with no internal structure whatsoever - there were no beams, no columns, no offices, nothing, just two large blocks of matter. If that were the case, his argument would be reasonable, I think. Unfortunately for him, this is a gross oversimplification, which results in the utterly wrong result. McHrozni Not really. Assuming that the resistance is proportional to mass in that case would make sense (I think), but equal... No way. How much something weights is unrelated to how firmly it holds together.
Lak New Blood Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 24

27th February 2010, 07:58 AM	#10
Tony Szamboti Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,976	Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear That and he's doing the same thing Szamboti does ignoring that the .36mg he surmises is a STATIC weight of the building, NOT THE DYNAMIC LOAD. None of these people are capable of distinguishing the difference, and those that do try to twist some excuse to say it wasn't there. Chandler won't accept criticism of any kind so I guess he stays wrong. Not surprising... The static load is 1mg in case you aren't aware, and the building was designed to resist at least 3mg. Nobody ignores the resistance of 0.36mg. It is just that this shows the load purported to be destroying the building is well below even the insufficient static load. It is not dynamic in any sense of the word and your post here doesn't make sense.
	Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 27th February 2010 at 08:02 AM.

27th February 2010, 08:02 AM	#11
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Nobody ignores the resistance of 0.36mg. It is just that this shows the load is well below even the insufficient static load. It is not dynamic in any sense of the word and your post here is utter nonsense. Well, then. I guess that just goes to show us exactly how well you've absorbed engineering concepts over the years.
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672

27th February 2010, 08:04 AM	#12
Tony Szamboti Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,976	Originally Posted by AZCat Well, then. I guess that just goes to show us exactly how well you've absorbed engineering concepts over the years. Everytime I see one of your posts I am reminded of the saying "where's the beef?". You apparently have nothing to say but nonsense and ad hominem.

27th February 2010, 08:08 AM	#13
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Everytime I see one of your posts I am reminded of the saying "where's the beef?". You apparently have nothing to say but nonsense and ad hominem. Considering that arguing with you became pointless years ago when you repeatedly proved you couldn't grasp simple engineering concepts, why would you expect me to argue about details that depend on those same concepts? You might want to learn what an ad hominem argument is before accusing me of making one (not that I expect you to do so).
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672

27th February 2010, 08:08 AM	#14
McHrozni Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,919	Originally Posted by Lak Not really. Assuming that the resistance is proportional to mass in that case would make sense (I think), but equal... No way. How much something weights is unrelated to how firmly it holds together. Hm, yeah, point. Although if you have two objects, which are different in size, but otherwise identical, weight would be an unrelated indicator which would sustain more punishment. I think this is where the claim that the weight is so important originates from. It's a gross mistake, of course, but I find it interesting to try to find out where their 'arguments' originate. McHrozni

27th February 2010, 08:19 AM	#15
Tony Szamboti Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,976	Originally Posted by AZCat Considering that arguing with you became pointless years ago when you repeatedly proved you couldn't grasp simple engineering concepts, why would you expect me to argue about details that depend on those same concepts? You might want to learn what an ad hominem argument is before accusing me of making one (not that I expect you to do so). Please tell me what engineering concepts I am not grasping.

27th February 2010, 08:20 AM	#16
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Please tell me what engineering concepts I am not grasping. I already did (see upthread).
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672

27th February 2010, 08:24 AM	#17
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti The static load is 1mg in case you aren't aware, and the building was designed to resist at least 3mg. Nobody ignores the resistance of 0.36mg. It is just that this shows the load purported to be destroying the building is well below even the insufficient static load. It is not dynamic in any sense of the word and your post here doesn't make sense. That's right.
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

27th February 2010, 08:25 AM	#18
Tony Szamboti Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,976	Originally Posted by AZCat I already did (see upthread). You have done nothing of the sort. Your lack of detail shows you are only masquerading as though you know something.

27th February 2010, 08:33 AM	#19
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti The static load is 1mg in case you aren't aware, and the building was designed to resist at least 3mg. All Chandler did was split the weight of the building. It would be accurate providing that the masses were in static equilibrium. But in case it hasn't registered, the upper mass was in motion, gaining momentum once the columns failed. I fail to see how that is a competent assessment of the forces involved. It's not a static event even under your most optimistic assumptions.
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,866	__________________ Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 27th February 2010 at 08:36 AM.

27th February 2010, 08:36 AM	#20
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,121	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Everytime I see one of your posts I am reminded of the saying "where's the beef?". You apparently have nothing to say but nonsense and ad hominem. Poor David, at least he has you to support his delusions of a real-cd-deal! Great job of not understanding 911 for 8 years. What is next? I bet you are a JFK CTer too. What does your school think of your paper and now the rehash by David? What journal besides the nut case woo Journal will David be published in? I did not expect you to find the errors in Davids paper where he debunks himself, as you did. Why are you guys unable to get anything in a real journal? Paranoid much? Do you guys try to understand physics, or are you messing up to support some political agenda. Bush is not in office, are you guys anti-Obama too. Your paper and David's paper sound like a thing McVeigh would do if he were a failed physics teacher, and an engineer with real-cd-deal delusions. Using the old high resolution video scam again, this time with David. Can't beleive he was a physics teacher. Originally Posted by Profanz That's right. Look you have support from another delusion pusher who can't define his evidence or much of anything about 911. Good job, you have the zensmack clone supporting your crazy explosives did it lie made up by murdering science. Why are you making up lies to apologize for terrorists?
	Last edited by beachnut; 27th February 2010 at 08:39 AM.

27th February 2010, 08:39 AM	#21
Tony Szamboti Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,976	Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear All Chandler did was split the weight of the building. It would be accurate providing that the masses were in static equilibrium. But in case it hasn't registered, the upper mass was in motion, gaining momentum once the columns failed. I fail to see how that is a competent assessment of the forces involved. It's not a static event even under your most optimistic assumptions. It was not a dynamic event as there was no deceleration. Please explain why you continue to think it was a dynamic event.

27th February 2010, 08:53 AM	#24
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,528	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Please tell me what engineering concepts I am not grasping. Acceleration^WP: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1016 To be fair, you later admitted your definition of acceleration in that post wasn't quite right (), so I'll give another example... Graphing numerical data: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1213 Your history of engineering howlers is so well-established that you're not going to get anywhere by arguing from your personal authority. You'll have to offer a technical argument that holds up under examination by competent people, aka peer review^WP.
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,528

27th February 2010, 08:55 AM	#25
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,715	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Everytime I see one of your posts I am reminded of the saying "where's the beef?". You apparently have nothing to say but nonsense and ad hominem. ROFLMAO. Hey pot... I've got someone called the kettle on the phone for you. Please Tony. Pretty please can you show me your (or any) peer reviewed engineering journal articles which support your claims? Pretty please? I'm not asking for you to put out 10,000 pages... but 8 to 20 which is peer reviewed would be fantastic.
	__________________ "There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)

27th February 2010, 09:07 AM	#29
Tony Szamboti Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,976	Originally Posted by JamesB OK, so if an 18 wheeler semi-truck ran over, say, a box of Richard Gage DVDs, and the truck underwent no measurable deceleration, than that would also be defined as a static event? And you guys do realize that gravity was acting as a force the entire time, right? In the case you mention the static load of the truck is far more than sufficient to crush the box. It isn't a dynamic event either. Many of you guys don't seem to understand what a dynamic event actually is. 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.

27th February 2010, 09:08 AM	#30
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti You have done nothing of the sort. Your lack of detail shows you are only masquerading as though you know something. Whatever, Tony. It is quite evident that you don't understand dynamics, regardless of your training or experience. That's been apparent since you began posting over at DemocraticUnderground.
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672

27th February 2010, 09:10 AM	#31
Tony Szamboti Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,976	Originally Posted by beachnut Soda? Is drinking coke a problem? no You and David have failed to make progress in understanding 911 for 8 years, I figured it out on 911. The Passengers on Flight 93 figured it out in Minutes; they hold the record. You and David have been apologizing for terrorists for how long and made zero progress with your lies and delusions of explosives, or is it Jones' thermite as he slips off into insanity blaming the US for the earthquake in Haiti. You and David failed, and you don't have a clue why as you publish your poppycock in a failed physics fired professors Journal of woo. When will you and David have your super papers in a real journal. It is sad to say but you are really the one without a clue and are actually unwittingly apologizing for the real terrorists, who planted demolition devices in those three buildings. There is no chance that the aircraft impacts and fires brought down those buildings and we need a new investigation.

27th February 2010, 09:18 AM	#32
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	Hey Tony, which do you think would hurt worse, if I placed a 5lb weight on your head, or if I dropped a 1lb weight on your head from 10 feet? Why is that?
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

27th February 2010, 09:23 AM	#33
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,121	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti It is sad to say but you are really the one without a clue and are actually unwittingly apologizing for the real terrorists, who planted demolition devices in those three buildings. There is no chance that the aircraft impacts and fires brought down those buildings and we need a new investigation. No chance you will ever understand 911? You support terrorists by making up lies and failing at physics and engineering. Anyone at you college support your failed ideas on 911? With impacts 7 to 11 times greater than design, you are wrong again. Fire did it, darn, you missed the first investigations and now you can your failed Jones Kool-aid cult for insane ideas on 911 need another investigation you will not understand. Wow. Originally Posted by Profanz I think he is just an angry guy. You should be angry with your failed education. You also fail at understanding 911, are you zensmack? When will you loan Tony some evidence from your bag of 911 truth delusions?

27th February 2010, 09:25 AM	#34
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Please explain why you continue to think it was a dynamic event. Because static is defined by equilibrium between forces. Net forces are zero, net acceleration is zero, net velocity is zero, because none of thse are changing in the static event. In the WTC, you had changes in velocity, net acceleration of the upper mass was positive (if you consider the direction of gravity positive). The mass was constantly changing as more floors were destroyed. The momentum increased with the velocity of the mass. It's quite difficult to see how you're able to contest that while also stating the the net acceleration was less than 9.81 m/s/s. Aside from the treatment of the forces being grossly in error, you're also trying to have things two ways.
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,866	__________________ Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg

27th February 2010, 09:28 AM	#35
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	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".
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

27th February 2010, 09:30 AM	#36
Tony Szamboti Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,976	Originally Posted by JamesB Hey Tony, which do you think would hurt worse, if I placed a 5lb weight on your head, or if I dropped a 1lb weight on your head from 10 feet? Why is that? If the 1lb weight dropped from 10 feet decelerated at a rate greater than 5g upon impact it would apply more force to your head. You seem to have an intuitive sense that dynamic loads are potentially more damaging, like most people, but do you understand why James?

27th February 2010, 09:33 AM	#37
Tony Szamboti Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,976	Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear Because static is defined by equilibrium between forces. Net forces are zero, net acceleration is zero, net velocity is zero, because none of thse are changing in the static event. In the WTC, you had changes in velocity, net acceleration of the upper mass was positive (if you consider the direction of gravity positive). The mass was constantly changing as more floors were destroyed. The momentum increased with the velocity of the mass. It's quite difficult to see how you're able to contest that while also stating the the net acceleration was less than 9.81 m/s/s. Aside from the treatment of the forces being grossly in error, you're also trying to have things two ways. 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.
	Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 27th February 2010 at 09:37 AM.

27th February 2010, 09:45 AM	#38
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti 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. 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.
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,866	__________________ Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 27th February 2010 at 09:47 AM.

27th February 2010, 09:54 AM	#39
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Additionally, in this case there will be some resistance and the weight will not fall at 9.81 m/s/s. That's a ridiculous statement given the dearth of information about the column in your example. There are cases where the weight in your example would indeed fall at ~9.8 m/s² after the column failed, and without more information you cannot say what would happen.
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672