A brief analysis of WTC 1 : Initial catastrophic failure.

right! lot of good it does to give these guys math when they dont understand the basic physics concepts in the first place. 10x5 is worthless when people cannot imagine how many 50 is. chandler has the patience of a saint and does take his time explaining it for noobs.

 

There is more to it than that. The antenna began to collapse first which means that the core columns had been compromised.

 

You're the one making the claim, its your burden of proof.

 

math can be completely unnecessary if you understand the underlying physics concepts and if you do not understand the underlying physics concepts no amount of math will prove anything to you so th ebuck stops there.

- - - Updated - - -

you people keep forgetting the "official story" is the claim, you support it you are making the initial claim, the burden of proof is always on you and as can be seen time and time again you have none! zippo!

 

Yeah, that's like the first sentence of the Principia.

Basically it says "Math is dumb. Physics is about eggs and pictures of butts, BOOYHA, -Newt."

 

I understand it just fine. In order for the mass of the upper load to accelerate then the support structure below it had to be removed. If the support structure below had remained intact then the mass of the upper load would have decelerated during descent. That did not happen. We witnessed an accelerating mass. David Chandler explains the physics in "Experts Speak Out." For those interested in knowing the physics at play in the collapse of the WTC buildings simply take the time to watch "Experts Speak Out."

 

You obviously don't, as I showed you earlier. Chandler admits he made a mistake...

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/when-will-david-chandler-fix-his-errors.html

 

Even Chandler admitted his mistake. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/when-will-david-chandler-fix-his-errors.html

mass 30 v 1, 31 v 1, 32 v 1, 33 v 1, 34 v 1 if the upper mass is growing, and the lower is not why would the upper load decelerate?

 

It is clear that you have never once, in all of your life, ever set up a demolitions charge. They are not calculated in milliseconds at all. Milliseconds are meaningless in the case of a controlled demolition. If you listen to the charges going off in any of the scores of demolition videos on line, you will hear many explosions with multiple seconds between the first and the last.

Once again... you have exactly no idea what the hell you are talking about.

You can buy a dictionary in any bookstore. You can buy a dozen of them. None of them contain your very weird and erroneous definition.

But I have to admit, you continue to surprise me. In spite of the many fields in which I already knew you were ignorant, it never crossed my mind that you did not know where to buy a dictionary.

No. You simply misapplied the word several times in a row, apparently suffering from the misconception that if you make the same mistake enough times it will magically no longer be wrong. There is not a single dictionary or lexicon on the planet that defines "symmetrical" in any way supportive of your bizarre usage.

I knew what you meant. You are still wrong. None of those demolitions are symmetrical, and symmetrical does not mean "falls straight down."

 

THIS VIDEO DOES NOT EXIST

Someone has a read face

 

This latest assertion cannot be considered anything other than completely insane.

Squealing and stamping your feet is not a challenge. It is a tantrum.

I have shown my math. Where is yours?

 

it depends on the job and what you want to accomplish and the material being blasted. nothing is clear to you except that you make (*)(*)(*)(*) up. sometimes you want them to go off all at the same time. again you are trying to construe what I said in its narrowest possible sense rather than the way I meant it in its broadest possible sense.

How many times do I need to continue to tell you that?

yeh yeh yeh when all else fails play the grammar nazi card

 

if you dont understand what you are looking at, I agree with the flat earthers.

you havent shown your math, nor your data source

 

Again... for it to happen like that, time would have to travel backwards. This is a violation of every law of physics, not just one or a few of them.

Wow, your theory changes drastically with almost every post. You apparently have your goal posts mounted on wheels.

If any element of the core is intact, then the core cannot be said to have been "blown." If any of the columns are remaining, then the core cannot be reasonably said (by any sane person) to be "hanging" in midair. Furthermore, the core columns were so stiff, that even with a full load, the entire weight of the upper section (14 floors) would compress any supporting floor's columns by just 8 millimeters - or about a third of an inch, meaning that until the entire core failed, there would not be enough movement to buckle the perimeter columns at all.

Like I said... you really have to stop making (*)(*)(*)(*) up. The first rule of holes is to stop digging. At the rate you are going, you will soon be arguing with the Chinese.

You have no idea what the stress analysis shows. You have no better understanding of the image you keep posting than you do of ancient Ugaritic cuneiform.

I have done the analysis using the fully accepted variables and I have shown my math.

Where is yours?

 

Again, the experts answer that question in the architects and engineers "Experts Speak Out" video. I can't help you because you don't seem to know the difference between acceleration and deceleration. Besides the fact that the upper mass wasn't growing. It is obvious that most of the mass is being ejected.

 

I've already told him once that if Newton were alive today he would slap him silly. That comment by BJ would have earned a kick in the pants.

- - - Updated - - -

In all of the history of science and engineering, that has never been true.

 

Wrong.

In order for the upper load to accelerate, the acceleration due to gravity must simply exceed the deceleration presented by the supporting structure below.

The math proving that this was the exact circumstance is here. None of you guys have even tried to challenge it.

Perhaps you did not notice... the support structure did not remain intact.

This is why:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=333345&page=45&p=1063362053#post1063362053

 

no it does not, you continually narrowly misconstruct and misrepresent what I say any one reading your posts can clearly see that your whole premise has been reduced to manure.

you have not done anything but post a bunch of numbers and tell every one dems da numbers. no reason to believe anything you say since you have been shown to have screwed up physics.

Hell you even admit that there is no way for you to know which columns failed or in what order and you make the gargantuan leap of faith that since the building fell down that is the way it had to happen while completely closing your eyes to demolition.

that is not an investigator, that is a dry labber.

even now you completely do an endrun around my point that heat would have been a very slow lowering of floors not this crashing down you go on about.

You believe the impossible and prove it with guesses and maybes

 

That's actually not an honest quote. That is a quote taken out-of-context which is unethical. The math of the WTC Towers demolition is not really relevant in this discussion because the underlying principle that can't be violated is Newton's third law of motion. We should be witnessing deceleration in the WTC collapses and we didn't.

 

not true I have several times, you like to pretend no one challenged it.

 

Show us an example.

And yet you accuse me of speaking in generalities? You are not speaking in "the broadest possible sense" at all. You are completely misusing ordinary and well understood words, and in the process destroying all hope of making any sense at all.

It doesn't matter. It still will never magically change the real meaning of the word "symmetrical."

Oh my... now we discover that you don't know what grammar is either? Is there no bottom to the well of your error?

- - - Updated - - -

I understand exactly what I'm looking at. This why I can so safely conclude that the assertion is insane.

It's all in the OP. Go look again.

 

I have now watched that video end to end three times. I can safely say (as a degreed engineer) that there is not one actual expert anywhere in it.

 

Some of those experts have 40 years engineering experience. I don't know what you think an expert is. Obviously, you think you are smarter than all of them combined.

 

There you go again. Squealing and stamping your feet. When can we expect an actual argument?

Show us the, Show me exactly where my math is in error.

You asked for an explanation. I did a thoughtful analysis and provided one. You have never actually challenged the explanation beyond throwing a tantrum.

It does not matter which columns failed. The math proves that any column is as good as the next. And the analysis proves that when you assert the fires could not have cause the collapse of the upper floors you are simply, factually wrong.

Well there you go. Proof positive that you do not understand the analysis of the OP in the tiniest bit. How is it that you can wail and gnash your teeth and call the analysis "manure" when you don't even understand it in the first place.

It's a pickle.

And yet, you are the only one in this thread proposing a theory that requires time to run backwards. Thus it is fairly established that your comprehension of what is impossible is less than reliable.

 

Again, this assertion demonstrates that you have no idea what Newton's 3rd Law actually means.

As long as the acceleration due to gravity exceeds the deceleration imposed by the remaining lower structure, there will still be a net acceleration downward.

And the math proving that the acceleration due to gravity did exceed the imposed deceleration can be found here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=333345&page=45&p=1063362053#post1063362053

- - - Updated - - -

Where is your math then?

Remember... squealing and stamping your feet is not a challenge. To challenge the analysis you actually have to show me exactly where the math is wrong.

I've been waiting almost 24 hours at this point.

Where is it?