Goodbye, Mr Roberts

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Not what he ruled. There might have been sufficient energy available. As you yourself noted elsewhere above, Chandler did not compute how much energy was available, much less make claims as to whether it was enough or not.

plonk

Well you're right, he made no mention whatsoever of energy. He did, however, rule that the force involved as insufficient to cause what was witnessed, based on the analysis of the paper. He has insufficient basis to rule out anything based on his analysis.

The undamaged lower section of the building was built to support several times the weight of the material above it, but whether or not we take the safety factor into account, the reduced force exerted by the falling mass could not have been what caused the violent destruction of the building seen in numerous videos.

Using his analysis, an acceleration of -9.81 m/s2 would mean zero force was applied to a structure and an acceleration of 0.00 m/s2 would mean that 100% of the normal force is applied to the structure. Additionally, an acceleration of some positive number (falling upwards) is the only possible way to achieve a greater-than-Normal force on the structure. Since the "force exerted by the falling mass could not have caused the violent destruction," that obviously means the only way for the building to suffer any damage would be if it flew up into the lower section as they impacted. That's Chandler's view.

Just think logically and try to piece the things together; so long as the acceleration is less than gravity of a collapsing building, it is completely impossible that it is suffering a collapse unless there's a controlled demolition according to this puerile analysis. Any acceleration less than gravity would mean a less-than-Normal force applied upon impact, according to this puerile analysis.

Or think of it another way: the only way for Chandler to conclude that the force was sufficient to cause failure under a no-safety-factor condition would be if the acceleration was zero meaning no collapse, and the only way to account for the safety factor would be if the destruction occurred accelerating in the reverse direction of gravity by n-1 times the acceleration of gravity, where n is the safety factor, as that's the only way to achieve a force greater than the normal force applied to the lower section using this absolutely asinine approach.

Just face reality, ffs. For someone supposedly seeking "Truth" you sure seem to vehemently deny the existence of physical truths (i.e. energy, material properties, etc.). Maybe Isaac Newton was CIA?

[reallife]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

This example deserves further comment.

Imagine that someone painted a thin cardboard wall to look like a thick dense teak wood wall and that we fired a .45 caliber bullet at it. We observe this using a high speed camera. If one tracks the change in velocity (aka the acceleration) of the bullet as it enters the target, one can determine that the target resisted the bullet less than we expected, given that we thought we were firing at thick teak wood. The bullet will not have slowed up enough. We don't know from just this that the wall was thin cardboard, but we can conclude immediately and with confidence that it was not structurally sound thick dense teak wood.

The key is that by Chandler's analysis, one can measure how strong was the stationary target, when hit and penetrated or destroyed by an object in motion. One does this by observing the impact on the acceleration of the moving object. The greater the negative change to the moving objects acceleration, the more force was generated during the impact. This is simply an application of the classic vē = 2as, F = ma and ft = mv equations.

Chandler shows with his observations that the force generated by the impact of the upper and lower portions of the WTC1 tower and WTC7 building was substantially less that the static load of the upper portion (WTC1) or practically zero (WTC7).

Since we know from observing the buildings prior to their collapse that the lower portions could support the weight of upper portions, therefore something other than the force of impact from the upper portions caused the collapses the lower portions. The force of impact was substantially less than the force of the gravitational load, which we know the lower building portions could support, right up to the time they collapsed.

Your analysis and conclusion is flawed by not considering the acceleration of gravity on the debris as it falls onto the lower floors. F=ma, indeed. The dynamic force of impact absorbed by the lower floor is actually very significantly greater than the static, gravitational load. Talk to a civil engineer.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

If I understand this and the remainder of that post correctly, you are discussing the various kinds of energy and calculating that there is enough energy present to cause the collapse. You carefully demonstrate that a falling mass has greater impacting energy than the same mass at rest.

I entirely agree with all that.

We have an object with potentially enough energy to collapse another object, colliding with that other object. General collapse ensues.

Given those observations then, yes, no doubt, the most obvious and likely explanation is that the collision caused the collapse. Yup.

Looking at the evidence and analysis which you are considering, I entirely agree that your explanation of the collapse mechanism is the most plausible. No nano-thermite, death star rays or arch-angels required.

Let's take this one step at a time. Have I demonstrated at least a basic but adequate understanding of your understanding of this matter?

Be that as it may - my point wasn't that nano-thermite is impossible.

My point is that the collapse was at least plausible - unlike what the various papers you've pointed out are saying.

In fact in retrospect there are even more wrinkles to the possible outcomes:

Both the 9/11 truth papers and NIST acknowledge that the tower at the top of the WTC buildings tilted appreciably before the collapse ensued.

I do not recall either source noting the possibility of an interior collapse (i.e. core only) followed by the external walls.

In this case, the central core gives way. In turn the outside walls of the building collapse but tilting inward (obscured by the dust spewed out in the process). However as the outer structure is collapsing, the inner core and the inner portion of the WTC is falling downwards, constrained by the yet extant outside walls.

Kind of like a 00 pellet in a shotgun barrel, bouncing around and breaking things.

Obviously this is complete fabrication on my part. But it would explain the collapse of the overall structure - the steel structure was definitely not designed to withstand rapid diagonal shocks; it was designed to withstand lateral shifts of center of gravity due to wind and/or earthquake.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Your analysis and conclusion is flawed by not considering the acceleration of gravity on the debris as it falls onto the lower floors. F=ma, indeed. The dynamic force of impact absorbed by the lower floor is actually very significantly greater than the static, gravitational load. Talk to a civil engineer.

You are not understanding. Well, normally I would say apologetically that I have not been sufficiently clear, because that is more likely to facilitate further good communication if I blame myself than if I blame the other. In this case, I cannot honestly say that; I think I've been quite clear.

Nevertheless ... I will try one more time.

Of course, if I drop an upper building onto a lower building, then when the upper impacts the lower building, it has momentum than it did not have as a static load, in addition to its inherent weight.

My analysis involves the time period during that impact, not prior. The dropped upper portion will "slow down" (more accurately, decelerate) while it is colliding with the lower portion, depending on how strongly the lower "pushes" back

If you drop object A onto object B, then -during- the period of impact, you can determine the force with which B is pushing back up on A (resisting the impacting force) by examining the rate at which A decelerates.

If I

• construct what appears to be a solid building out of tissue paper, a building so flimsy that the next breeze or butterfly that comes along will destroy it,
• drop some weight on that "building", then
• track the motion of the weight while it is colliding with this "building",

then I will be able to observe something unexpected (unexpected if I thought the "building" actually was strong and solid.)

The falling weight won't slow down (decelerate) as much as I would have anticipated. Indeed, in this tissue paper example, the falling weight will continue to accelerate downward at close to Gravity == 32 ft/secē, just as if nothing were there (just as happened with WTC7 :rolleyes.

Another example: if you slam a fake Styrofoam brick with your sledgehammer, it shocks your hand less than if you slam a real brick. It's the same sledgehammer and the same blow, but there is less deceleration of the hammer head while it is crushing the Styrofoam than from hitting a brick. (Measuring this in the brick case may require a high speed film camera shutter, as the time period of impact will be quite brief, but if you are able to measure this, you will see the hammer head decelerate very quickly.)

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

My point is that the collapse was at least plausible - unlike what the various papers you've pointed out are saying.

I entirely agree, absent conclusive evidence to the contrary, many collapse scenarios are plausible.

In my view, the "thermetic-material" that Prof. Jones found was conclusive evidence, but it was not so in your view. For the time being at least, I don't know of anyway to convince you it is conclusive evidence, so I moved on.

Now I am presenting Chandler's measurements of the position, velocity and acceleration of a specific location on the upper, falling, building, for each of WTC1 and WTC7. It shows that while impacting and ostensibly destroying lower floors, the upper portions are continuing to accelerate downward at 2/3's and all of Gravity, respectively.

Once again, I find that to be conclusive proof; this time proof that the lower portions were resisting the falling uppers with substantially less force than they applied while holding up the static weight of the upper portions (WTC1) or with essentially no resistance at all (WTC7). From this I conclude that it is not the impact weakening and destroying the lower levels (because if it were the impact of the upper portion, that impact would decelerate the uppers more). Therefore something else is destroying the lower building, below the impact zone, allowing the uppers to fall with little or no impediment.

I am puzzled by your replies however.

In the case of the thermite, at least your reply was clear to me. You did not find that thermite to be obviously man-made. You thought it could have formed from the heat and pressure of the moment, by some "natural" process. You nicely illustrated that hypothesis. I was not convinced, but I no longer see a way that I think should convince you, so we're at a standstill on that topic.

But I do not yet find (perhaps I missed something) a clear response to this present evidence (Chandler's measurements.) Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems I am still just getting your "many things are plausible" response.

Yes, many scenarios are plausible -- but it is possible for sufficiently persuasive evidence to rule out some scenarios.

I assert that Chandler's evidence rules out the scenario (as in the NIST report) that the upper portions formed a pile driver "crushing" the lower portions.

Do you agree with that assertion or not? If you disagree, please explain.

Thanks.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

But I do not yet find (perhaps I missed something) a clear response to this present evidence (Chandler's measurements.) Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems I am still just getting your "many things are plausible" response.

I do understand where Chandler is coming from - it is just that it is wrong.

A background setup:

t = 0 is the instant where structural failure in one or more floors in a WTC tower begins

At t = -1 (or more), the entire weight of the upper floors of the WTC are being successfully supported.

At t = 0, the structural integrity fails. After this, at t = +1 (or more), there are several scenarios so I'll use the simplest one - all core steel structure beams that were not already cut by the 767 simultaneously fail.

How do they fail? It can be a bending, a breaking, a number of scenarios but if they failed, then clearly they are not exerting their previous static load strength. If they all bent, for example, the net gravitational energy gained by the falling upper floors is partially absorbed by the warping steel. But note where the first Chandler fallacy arises: he assumes that static load resistance is the same as energy absorption. It is not.

The upper floors at rest have zero kinetic energy. They have gravitational potential energy, but this translates into 0 actual energy at t = -1.

The weight at t = -1 is supported by steel structure, more specifically by the atomic bonds and crystalline lattice of steel. These bonds aren't absorbing anything (theoretically they are absorbing a little something, but nothing close to the scale of the Newtonian force applied). This is just Force, not energy.

At t = +1, if all the remaining core beam bent, then the upper floors are already gaining kinetic energy. Some of this kinetic energy would be absorbed by the parts of the beams bending - converting said kinetic energy into mechanical work plus heat (bending metal produces heat). But how much is this? A lot in single person terms, insignificant in 20000 ton, hundreds of millions of Newtons terms (my assumption, I haven't calculated it).

This brings us to the second fallacy which Chandler doesn't get: a falling object striking a rigid object doesn't lose energy unless said energy is absorbed or converted.

If the falling WTC upper portion strikes the lower and breaks the structure in the lower portion - at whatever point - the energy of the falling upper floors isn't distributed evenly along the entire structure, it is concentrated on the break point.

Only if the entire structure withstands the force does the energy get absorbed - by the ground the structure rests on. The entire earth gets moved an insignificant degree.

A common example of the difference between what Chandler is saying and kinetic energy is the classic Newtonian action reaction pendulum:



One ball falling on one end pushes the opposite end ball out - ideally the same degree. One falling on each side works exactly as if each ball were operating independently.

A WTC upper floor falling on the lower structure exerts a force all along the lower structure equal to the upper floor's kinetic energy. If the lower structure doesn't break, then the energy is absorbed by the ground, not the lower structure (significantly).

I'm outta time. More later.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I do understand where Chandler is coming from

I don't think you do understand, from what I read in this post. Rather your comments are an inadequate justification for dismissing Chandler's analysis from further consideration.

Consider if you will my sledgehammer and Styrofoam brick above. Do you understand that with just several position and time measurements of the sledgehammer head while it is impacting (or crushing, in the case of the foam) the brick, that one could determine whether the brick was real or foam?

It still seems to me that you are claiming Chandler is wrong because he is not presenting your analysis but rather something else. You then reaffirm, as I will grant, that by your analysis "all things are possible" (there are plausible scenarios consistent with the official story.)

That doesn't make Chandler's analysis wrong. And your observations that his analysis is not yours does not provide evidence that you understand his analysis on its own merit, only that you understand it well enough to recognize it as "alien", suitable for "rejection by the host."

If the lower structure doesn't break, then the energy is absorbed by the ground, not the lower structure (significantly).

Or if the structure breaks totally due to other mechanisms, the energy is also absorbed by the ground, not having been expended on the way down crushing building?

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I don't think you do understand, from what I read in this post. Rather your comments are an inadequate justification for dismissing Chandler's analysis from further consideration.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

My opinion is clear: Chandler does a disservice by not distinguishing between Force and Energy. Whatever his intention, the strength of his arguments is destroyed by his failure to distinguish the two.

Or if the structure breaks totally due to other mechanisms, the energy is also absorbed by the ground, not having been expended on the way down crushing building?

Certainly to the extent which energy isn't expended via friction or mechanical work - both of which convert some of the energy to heat, but then there is the dilemma of why the collapse wasn't exactly that of a free fall.

The timed demolition thus is presented, but again it seems more a theory fitted to the events rather than vice versa.

As I've noted before, it isn't that this is not possible. It is that:

1) the presenters of the demolition theory have a clear agenda
2) the presenters of the demolition theory dismiss any other possibilities as being impossible

1) itself is not necessarily an issue. You can be a conspiracy theorist and be right - someone really could be out to get you!

But 2) is a problem.

I think I've showed that the NIST theory is equally plausible - i.e. not disprovable - and with far less conditions than the nano-thermite theory.

If this is true, then the credibility of alternate theories which attempt to gain prominence primarily by dismissing the equally valid (as in not disprovable or disproven) NIST conclusion is damaged.

NIST correctly doesn't bother to try and disprove nano-thermite - for the very reason that you cannot disprove something for which all avenues of disproof are already closed off: a conspiracy/NIST is suppressing the evidence. Totally circular.

And again - while there are certainly a significant number of psycho sociopaths out there, both in and out of government, the number of people necessary to execute such an operation would seem to be very large: dozens if not hundreds.

That dozens or hundreds of people would conceal an operation deliberately intended to kill thousands of their fellow citizens and yet not one suffers enough pangs of remorse to confess...this seems highly improbable.

Contrast that with concealing a botched intercept order: perhaps a half dozen people are involved. More may be wondering why but have zero insight or direct responsibility hence knowledge.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

The matter is in your hands. Only the American people can clean up this mess and save yourselves from this destruction of your nation.

Think long and hard on this one.

At the same time however, such mass delusions are common. Is the American contentment with the War on Terror any less destructive in the end than the cultural revolution?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Chandler does a disservice by not distinguishing between Force and Energy. Whatever his intention, the strength of his arguments is destroyed by his failure to distinguish the two.

So are F = ma, ft = mv and vē = 2as wrong, because they do not mention energy? The absurdity of that claim should open your mind to the realization that you have been irrationally denying something here.

Yes, there was (perhaps) enough energy. By your analysis, the official story is plausible.

No, there was not enough impulse (ft). By Chandler's analysis, the official story is not plausible.

You are objecting that he's not looking at it using the same tools as you are, therefore he's wrong. That is a totally indefensible position. That someone of your demonstrated mental abilities would insist on holding to such a position is prima facia evidence that their own mind is part of the 9/11 coverup.

Please consider my Styrofoam brick and sledgehammer example. It is I believe my most accessible example yet demonstrating the classic physics analysis of impulse, momentum, force, mass, position, velocity and acceleration is (as it has been since Isaac Newton) a valid approach in a situation rather similar in its essential ways to the WTC tower collapses we're discussing.

Both Chandler's and your methods of analysis are valid. One shows the official story to be plausible (there might be enough energy); one shows the official story to be implausible (but there is not enough impulse (ft).) Therefore the official story is implausible.

Here's another example, this one focused on the matter of considering multiple models. If I analyze the driving time from where I am (North Texas) to say New York, I might determine that driving at the speed limit (say 60 MPH) for the distance involved (say 1600 miles) I can drive from here to New York in three days, including time for two night's rest. That's certainly plausible. But if I then look at my gas guage and realize I'm almost out of gas, and if look in my wallet and realize I have no money for gas, and if I know I have no other source of money, then I can determine that I cannot drive to New York, because I lack sufficient "energy" (gas.) You see? There's two valid ways to analyze something, one of which shows it could happen, the other of which says "no way." Therefore I can conclude it's not going to happen, given these particulars.

A conclusion of implausible in any of multiple valid methods of analyzing a situation demonstrates that it's implausible, even if the other methods of analysis are inconclusive.

Wake up, c1ue! Take the Red Pill!

(Yeah, I know. No one can choose for another which color pill they take.)

[radon]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

The key is that by Chandler's analysis, one can measure how strong was the stationary target, when hit and penetrated or destroyed by an object in motion. One does this by observing the impact on the acceleration of the moving object. The greater the negative change to the moving objects acceleration, the more force was generated during the impact. This is simply an application of the classic vē = 2as, F = ma and ft = mv equations.

Wouldn't this imply that the fellow who shot the gun would end up with a huge hole in his shoulder.

[radon]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

So are F = ma, ft = mv and vē = 2as wrong, because they do not mention energy? The absurdity of that claim should open your mind to the realization that you have been irrationally denying something here.

To be fair, I don't think he is saying they are wrong, only misapplied. In this case,I believe, he is arguing that the static load is no longer being transmitted into the ground because the energy from the falling floors is resulting in the decomposition of the floors below.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

In this case,I believe, he is arguing that the static load is no longer being transmitted into the ground because the energy from the falling floors is resulting in the decomposition of the floors below.

Chandler is not saying where the load (not just the static load, but all the "load", ie impulse) is being applied.

He's saying it's not being applied at all (WTC7), or substantially less than in the normal static, building still standing, case (WTC1). By simply measuring the acceleration of the falling object, one can see that it is providing little (WTC1) or no (WTC7) "load" (impulse, which is force applied over a time period) on anything, be that ground, crushing lower levels or passing sparrows.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Wouldn't this imply that the fellow who shot the gun would end up with a huge hole in his shoulder.

If the butt of the gun had a point on it like the tip of a bullet, then yup, that's going to hurt. If the gun had a very very short barrel over which to spread the acceleration of the bullet by the forces of the expanding gas over a period of time, but manages to get the bullet up to speed almost instantly, then double yup. Put a dull point on the backside of a Smith & Wesson Model 500 Magnum, hold it up to your shoulder, and fire a round. Have bandages and painkiller available before conducting this experiment.

Chandler's analysis does not explicitly calculate mass or area. Rather he compares two situations: when the building is standing firm, and when it is falling on that fateful day. The upper portion (whatever is falling) had no less mass in the minutes before general collapse ensued than it had during the collapse, so the mass cancels out (*). Similarly the floor area which provided support is the same as the area of the collapsing floors, so that too cancels out. The upper portion is tilting, so applying its destructive downward force asymmetrically, however the collapsing lower portion is failing very uniformly across the entirety of each floor, as close as can be observed. The downward force of the upper portion, given that it is not applying anything close to the downward force it had applied when stationary, is simply quite insufficient to account for the crushing collapse of the lower floors across the entire area of each floor all at once.

In the more general case, with different masses or different areas, then one needs to account explicitly for these as well in ones calculations.

What matters in this analysis is the force (combined weight and momentum over time) per area over time. Chandler demonstrates that the falling upper portion was applying much less (or no) force per area over time than it applied before, when stable. Therefore the total downward force of the upper portion was not the reason that heretofore (supposedly) undamaged lower portion was being crushed.

(*) If anything, with all the debris flying out as can be easily observed on the videos, the falling upper portion has less mass than it did in the minutes prior to general collapse, which only serves to buttress Chandler's conclusion.

[radon]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

If the butt of the gun had a point on it like the tip of a bullet, then yup, that's going to hurt. If the gun had a very very short barrel over which to spread the acceleration of the bullet by the forces of the expanding gas over a period of time, but manages to get the bullet up to speed almost instantly, then double yup. Put a dull point on the backside of a Smith & Wesson Model 500 Magnum, hold it up to your shoulder, and fire a round. Have bandages and painkiller available before conducting this experiment.

Chandler's analysis does not explicitly calculate mass or area. Rather he compares two situations: when the building is standing firm, and when it is falling on that fateful day. The upper portion (whatever is falling) had no more mass in the minutes before general collapse ensued than it had during the collapse, so the mass cancels out (*). Similarly the floor area which provided support is the same as the area of the collapsing floors, so that too cancels out. The upper portion is tilting, so applying its destructive downward force asymmetrically, however the collapsing lower portion is failing very uniformly across the entirety of each floor, as close as can be observed. The downward force of the upper portion, given that it is not applying anything close to the downward force it had applied when stationary, is simply quite insufficient to account for the crushing collapse of the lower floors across the entire area of each floor all at once.

In the more general case, with different masses or different areas, then one needs to account explicitly for these as well in ones calculations.

What matters in this analysis is the force (combined weight and momentum over time) per area over time. Chandler demonstrates that the falling upper portion was applying much less (or no) force per area over time than it applied before, when stable. Therefore the total downward force of the upper portion was not the reason that heretofore (supposedly) undamaged lower portion was being crushed.

(*) If anything, with all the debris flying out as can be easily observed on the videos, the falling upper portion has less mass than it did in the minutes prior to general collapse, which only serves to buttress Chandler's conclusion.

Whether the rifle but is pointed or not has little to do with it. When the rifle is fired, equal and opposite should mean that my shoulder, transmitted by the stock, experiences the same force as the bullet. This is the same force that just sent the .338 Lapua projectile flying out the barrel at 1000 m/s. Clearly 7000J were not applied to my shoulder. If it had my arm would have been severed by the rifle butt.

In this case the initial force diagram tells you less than you would think about how elements evolve over time, and you might mistakenly conclude that it is impossible to fire a gun without killing yourself.

My point was that basing analysis on a simple force diagram is too idealized to tell you anything useful about the event. A building falling down is complex in ways that a simple force diagram cannot capture. For instance the misaligned center structural supports could fall long distances inside the superstructure without encountering significant resistance. What if this is what happened?

If we want our model to be an accurate representation then we need to account for things like this otherwise it becomes less useful for predicting outcomes or learning about past events. It might simplify your simulation to model structural columns as being incompressible. Maybe you want to throw out the second order terms as well. Doing this things leads you farther from reality. It also might lead you to wonder why your bridge fell down in response to a steady breeze.

As a side note. It is completely possible to bring down a large building like that without explosives or thermite. The methods involved can be noisy and you would need an excuse to evacuate the building to avoid suspicion.