Both theories rely on experts, and calculations that if they thought were BS, I don't think they would put them out there to get ripped to shreds. What I want to see or hear is a debate pitting the experts and their calculations against each other. A new independent investigation would hopefully produce this.
First off, neither David Chandler nor Richard Gage is an expert in engineering. Chandler is a high school physics teacher. This does NOT qualify him to write a paper on engineering.
Mr. Jones said:
You assume everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't learning and is a dumbshit, that's hilarious.
No, the people who have had things explained to them that can be verified, yet they choose to blissfully ignore them are dumbshits who aren't learning. Nice try though.
Mr. Jones said:
I hardly expected Chandler to be here and respond.
Look around. Chandler has gotten into online debates and got his ass handed to him.
Mr. Jones said:
Funny people like Dr. Frank Legge, Tony Szamboti, and Gordon Ross, are basically saying the same things, and take into consideration other characteristics of the steel and what the top block had to overcome.
Frank Legge is a big time fraud and is more than willing to lie and try to strongarm other groups of the truthtard bowel movement. The infighting between truthtard groups always cracks me up.
Here is a good read on that.
Anyway, using members of the fraudulant AE911 isn't exactly using experts.
Mr. Jones said:
It was another attempt on your part to generalize and deceive. Why would I whine about any real numbers, I already admitted I'm not too hip on the calculations. If you happen to know them and can make sense of them post it, don't throw BS in the discussion and pretend you didn't. Mountains weigh more then marbles.
When someone goes to great lengths to explain to you that the numbers are WELL below normal explicitly to prevent a claim the numbers are too high, yet you ignore that and pretend the numbers are too high, I'm going to call you on it.
Also, my point is that a mountain is going to fall at the exact same rate as the marble despite it being billions of times heavier.
Mr. Jones said:
No you referenced me-This is what you wrote-
"
You point to the "smaller" top half and pretend like it has to destroy the entire lower section at once. That isn't how a collapse happens because loads aren't shifted instantaniously. Local structures fail as the collapse progresses,
so pretending the upper section had to overcome this massive lower section all at once is just retarded."
Chandler isn't mentioned
So who posted Chandler's paper as evidence of what they believe? Regardless, despite your claims to the contrary, you went ahead and pretended the lower section was one piece as well.
Mr. Jones said:
The top had to overcome more then just the floors, and the estimates the experts give is about 1 second per floor, given the top half had a lot of localized resistance to overcome, at every floor.
I never said the top had to JUST overcome the floors. I see you're back to lying.
What experts? What are their calculations or are they just pulling shit out of their asses? Oh please PLEASE use Judy Woods' billiard ball example! That one is SO much fun because the truthtard who uses it looks like a total jackass after pretending it is in any way true!
Mr. Jones said:
Strange you mention "all that debris" when supporters of the fire collapse mention the buildings were "mostly air" and try to minimize mass, except when it comes to "all the debris" being a force on the lower half.
Here is another example of the extremely dishonest tactic used by truthtards called the binary method. Either the building is nearly solid or it is mostly air.
Nothing in between! Look, you silly ****, BY VOLUME, the towers are mostly air. Are you now going to pretend each floor didn't compromise thousands of tons of material? Come on. Seriously?
Mr. Jones said:
Regardless have you taken into account the elastic loading and plastic shortening phases of the columns, its effect on momentum transfer? There would be some losses of energy due to residual strength within the failing columns.
Of course there would be. If there wasn't, you wouldn't see any debris going over the sides and the towers would have fallen at free fall acceleration.
Mr. Jones said:
In short this engineers calculations show that when these other factors are taken into account, you have what amounts to energy losses.
Nobody is saying energy wasn't lost. Was it as much as was generated? Not even a little bit close.
Mr. Jones said:
The kinetic energy of the falling section would be similarly affected, but because of the velocity squared relationship, the reduction in kinetic energy would be more pronounced. K. E. of falling section before impact = 16 floors moving at (8.5 m/sec) K. E. of falling section after impact = 17 floors moving at (4.8 m/sec)
Percentage loss of K.E. = 1-(17 * 4.8/ (16 *8.5) * 100% = 66%
So here we have a calculation that takes into account elastic deflection, and a slowing down of the collapse. Feel free to look it over-
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
OK, here is a good example of the tactics used by the various truthtard sites. Let's say the calculations are right and you lost 66% of the kinetic energy destroying the first floor and your speed has been reduced to 4.8 m/s. Now you have 17 floors where the mass is going to continue to accelerate through the next floors before impacting the floors blelow them and you're going to generate all the energy of the initial part of the collapse with the added mass of the 17th floor - any debris that went over the side. Lather, rinse, repeat. You're still going to end up with more and more energy as the building falls. Remember, the kinetic energy is still there no matter what velocity the top is falling at. One only uses freefall acceleration to determine the total amount. It doesn't matter if the mass actually comes down at 1 or 100 miles an hour, the same amount of energy HAS to be released.
Mr. Jones said:
These guys are experts and too good to over look something a lowly high school physics teacher noticed in such an important investigation that's why.
Really? So now you're an expert on experts, but you have no clue what they're saying. Hmmm. I'm thinking you may not be the best judge in the world.
Mr. Jones said:
The NIST investigation was comprised of eight separate projects, which all together produced 43 volumes of supporting documentation. The projects included metallurgical studies, an impact analysis, an attempt to reconstruct the fires, and a computer model of the probable sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower. Some of the agency's research was of excellent quality some was not. But the main problem is that none of it lends credence to NIST's official conclusions.
Says a guy who ADMITS he has no clue what the NIST documentation actually means. Don't you ever stop and question if AE911 et. al. are lying their asses off to you, someone who wouldn't be able to tell?
Mr. Jones said:
Depends on how many floors used the lighter columns. But you know damn well you would jump someones shit for doing the same.
No, I wouldn't, and if I did, I would hope someone pointed out the extreme logical flaws, especially about the core columns losing structural integrity once they are no longer perfectly vertical.
Mr. Jones said:
As I have been trying to explain, it doesn't appear to be that simple, here are other factors that engineers have sited in their refutations.
The point is that from an engineering point of view, the energies released are so far beyond what the building was designed for that there is no other outcome than collapse. Given the FACT there is no evidence whatsoever of controlled demolition, what other conclusion is one to come to?
Mr. Jones said:
So are you saying that opening up a 50lb bag of flour and dumping it on your head would hurt just as bad as if it hit your noodle unopened?
The exact same amount of energy would be released, yes. This is scientific fact. Pretending your head and a bag of flour vs. loose flour is somehow relevant to the towers is hysterical, but meaningless. Try this: Put a board over your head and dump the flour either in or out of the bag and you're still going to go down hard as you will be absorbing all the energy released at the same time.
Mr. Jones said:
You 're saying mass is mass? What would cause more damage in the above scenario?
Yes, mass is mass. You're going to get the same result whether the top section is a solid block or made up of hundreds to thousands of individual structures tied together. They still contain the exact same amount of potential energy that will convert to kinetic when the mass moves.
Mr. Jones said:
How so when the force of gravity is crucial to the kinetic energy? No gravity no energy right?
Gravity is used to calculate the energy contained in a structure above ground. Gravity loads are loads that are not moving and the only weight is that supplied by gravity. Once that load starts moving, it is no longer a gravity or static load but a dynamic load = static load + energy converted from potential to kinetic energy.
Mr. Jones said:
This brings me right back to the part where the top has to overcome the steels rigidity characteristics, and the time it takes to do that while being met with opposing forces.
Who says overcoming steel's rigidity takes time? Ever see a car wreck? Happens in a blink of the eye and can completely decimate the car including the very rigid steel frame.
Mr. Jones said:
See the bag of flour example above. Still the collapse should have taken much longer, as you say as the collapse progresses. Still IF this is possible, it should not happen almost instantaneously.
And we saw debris coming over the side. We also saw that the vast majority of the debris was piled up very close to the footprint of the building which means most of the debris was still part of the collapse.
As for time, it happened just as one would expect given the loads involved. You're talking about MASSIVE amounts of weight that should never be moving down. The structures just are NOT made to take those kinds of weight, and in the case of the core once they fail, they are no longer structurally sound. The core columns gain their enormous strength through being perfectly vertical and attached as a whole to one another through the spandrels at the top which helps distribute the loads. Disconnect the core columns from the spandrels and take them out of vertical and they no longer can support the weight involved. Take a straw (not a bendy one) and set it on a level surface and push straight down. The straw can take many times its own weight before it fails, yet if you do the same experiment with the straw not being perfectly vertical and the straw fails almost immediately.
Mr. Jones said:
Actually what I quoted was not from Chandler, but another engineer, regardless it appears from the different theories that there is more going on and forces against forces that must overcome to produce the witnessed results, that the average person doesn't look at. And what about the localized parts of the top block?? It is not one solid piece, it too experiences damage meeting the bottom head on...and again how can this happen..all these intricacies, and opposing forces trying to overcome each other..in just 10 to 15 seconds!? It is complicated.
Complicated doesn't mean takes a long time. Again, go back to a car wreck involving two cars. Happens in literally a blink of an eye, yet you have the same issues going on. Cars are not one mass, but numerous parts that all interact differently and produce different results. Yet the end results are usually the same; cars destroyed in a flash. Remember, no matter WHAT happens, you have the constant pressure from gravity insuring everything is being pulled inexhoribly down.
Mr. Jones said:
Even the power structure resisting the collapse bit by bit floor by floor, this would not happen almost instantaneously and I would agree that the collapse would take more the 10-15 seconds.
Remember, for every floor that collapses, the remaining energy of the upper section is still stored in the form of movement. That movement is constantly accelerated by gravity which means the entire collapse event is going to continue to accelerate on the way down. What started fairly slowly ended very quickly. Gravity is a *****!
Mr. Jones said:
The problem with this analogy is that the lower half being more robust and undamaged would be more akin to the sledgehammer, and the top to a regular carpenters hammer.
No, there you go pretending the lower half is a solid structure. It isn't. It is a structure made up of numerous smaller structures that are holding up the load. Those structures are all designed to share the load and distribute the load. They are NOT designed to support the kinds of weights the dynamic load presented them and there is no way they can redistribute the weight fast enough, especially since the ultimate mechanism for redistributing weight is the spandrels at the top of the tower which are no longer there. We know this happened because all one has to do is watch the collapse. The lower half doesn't disintegrate as one object, but is destroyed floor by floor as the structures fail. You have to look at it from the perspective of the structures in play at the time, not the sum total of all structures that are not yet affected.
Mr. Jones said:
But you still aren't taking any of the things into account that the top to has to overcome, so it's a series of smaller and stouter obstacles being provided by the lower half...?
Not stouter. Weaker. The beauty of modern skyscrapers, especially ones like the towers, is that they are engineering marvels that use far less steel and concrete than those before it. They work because of how the internal structures interact with one another to create something far stronger than the material alone is capable of supporting. The inherent problem with this is that when that structural integrity is compromised, the structure fails spectacularly.
Here is a good example. 100g of toothpicks are put together with nothing but glue. That is less than a quarter pound of toothpicks. The winning structure was able to handle 300Kg or a tick over 660 pounds of weight before breaking.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmLnxIKHJYY]YouTube - ‪11th Annual Toothpick Bridge Contest‬‏[/ame]
Mr. Jones said:
What chunk of the buildings are you talking about? Every video I have seen show a mostly pulverized mess with twisted metal every where. The top and falling part was destroyed in its descent. .From hitting and meeting the opposing lower blocks resisting force.
The chunk of the building I am talking about is the debris that is moving downward. That mass of debris continues to grow as it collapses down, despite the loss of some mass over the sides due to resistance.
Mr. Jones said:
Nope 90 storys in 10 -15 seconds?
Why not? The collapse event was under constant acceleration due to gravity. You can't just deny something for no reason.
Mr. Jones said:
I think the fallacy is in thinking the smaller top part biting away at the larger bottom half in 10 to 15 seconds. I am also thinking from the refutations I have read and slowly trying to understand, make sense when the steels strength is taken into consideration.
OK, let me ask you this honest question. If the collapse of the towers was just flat out impossible in the time frames involved, don't you think there would be more than just a mere handful of engineers going "wait a minute..... that ain't right!"
Here's the bottom line. We KNOW it happened and happened in the timeframes involved. We KNOW there weren't high explosives used ala a controlled demolition due to lack of evidence and first hand accounts, namely the survivors of the north tower who were IN the space the explosives would be going off, yet heard nothing but the approaching collapse.
So what other theory do you have to explain what you claim is impossible from a non controlled collapse? There was zero evidence of columns lower down weakened or cut from fires / explosives / thermite / aliens / insert favorite theory here.
Mr. Jones said:
Mr. Jones said:
We should expect to have a massive collapse but take much longer to complete.
Given your assumptions, I would agree with you. The problem is your assumptions are flawed. The dynamic energy does not decrease as the collapse progresses, but rapidly increases to the point where the resistance of the lower floors becomes insignificant. It is a vicious cycle of more mass and more velocity equaling more energy to destroy faster and add more mass and more velocity etc.
It would increase if it is constant, it had met resistance from every single floor on the way down, and actually encountered more mass to have to crush, because of the larger columns and structures the lower half was constructed with, thereby negating, at least somewhat, of the mass you are saying it picked up as it destroyed each floor.
You're also forgetting the other part of the equation: velocity. Remember, as the collapse progresses, any energy NOT used up by the destruction of the most recent floor is maintained via movement. This movement is constantly accelerated by gravity. Remember... it's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Is there some momentum lost due to resistance? Absolutely. Is it greater than the total acceleration gravity is pulling at? No or the collapse would stop completely.
Mr. Jones said:
I'm still trying to process both squabbles. it is obsessively interesting, time consuming and exhausting,,,**** it, I'm out ...for now.
**** it. Peace. ;-)
