Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Albert Doyle]

In this David Chandler video Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center, suspicious evidence of coordinated sequential charges strategically placed is presented, particularly in the case of the corner composed of two fourteen-inch box columns connected by steel plate, clad in aluminum, containing no window:

David Chandler is just narrating things into his video that he wants to see. Anyone can see the alleged corner charges are just billowing smoke from the collapse. These are just more mushy arguments that schmooze general blasts into one type of universal cutter charge that fits any size. Meanwhile Phil doesn't notice that Tony claimed burn-type thermite cutter packs initiated the drop of the upper section and that is why there were no blast jets there. Yet you have his partner in the video directly contradicting that and saying these were explosive charges. We are then back to the original question Tony answered by saying they were thermite cutter packs and not explosives. That question was: "Why are the dust jets on the lower floors much faster in velocity than the alleged charges on the top floors?" Look at the speed of the alleged explosive blast jets on the lower floors. They are visibly much faster than those dust jets at the initiation point at the upper section (as Tony admits). You can't just schmooze this stuff you have to give a credible scientific answer. Meanwhile go to the You-Tube video I linked of controlled demolitions. The corner columns were right there on the face of the building. If they were exploded by charges they would create the type of demolition blast seen in the You-Tube video. You don't see that. You see a slow puff of smoke that billows out as the section disconnects. What CDer's don't realize is this is, once again, firm proof of NO controlled demolition. With the corner column so close to the surface if it was a thermite cutter application it would burn through visibly and create a glowing red hot burn section that would throw sparks as it burned. You don't see that. If it was an explosives pack it would create a highly visible blast shock. You don't see that. CDer's are so under the spell of their theory that they fail to do even simple empirical analysis like this that easily disproves what they are saying. When the top section collapsed the corner column had to separate from the rest of the building at some point because of stress tolerance. That's all you're seeing here. And the fact it spired for a few seconds tells you there was vertical resistance in the outer frame (essential to ROOSD).

Also by David Chandler

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics


(see attachment)

Explicitly invoking Newton's Third Law puts this result in another light. Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite, the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is significantly less than its static weight. It is difficult to imagine how an upper block exerting a force of only 36% of its static weight could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above it. Assuming a safety factor of between 3 and 5 [12], the observed acceleration implies that close to 90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated by forces other than the supposed "pile driver," suggesting that some sort of controlled demolition was at work.

Nice pseudo-science but not sound. Chandler enters enough classic textbook math to make those uneducated in science take him at his word as to his conclusions. There's a simple explanation that Chandler avoids however. That is that the unsupported floor sections lacked so much critical structural support that the 36% he cites was enough to do the job. What we have been explaining all along is that the design of the tower was so vulnerable that it would only take the force Chandler cites to set-off ROOSD. Chandler does exactly what Tony does. He distracts with an irrelevant side argument that doesn't address the actual dynamics occurring at the time in the buildings. The above is a specious argument because the top section doesn't need to "crush" the bigger lower section. It just needs to trigger the potential energy created by the suspended floor design and create the lateral forces that follow ROOSD. This process is much more complex than the basic over-simplified model Chandler cites which fails to apply an accurate observation of the actual events as they occurred. Chandler tries to get away with his 90% claim by not recognizing the serious lateral forces involved with a floor collapse.

Also of note Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti, The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST--Bazănt Collapse Hypothesis


< snip >


Conclusions

We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.

Quack rubbish. There would be no jolt because the top core had been disconnected. The only structure capable of making this resistance jolt would be the outer frame. That frame came down and fell into the void created by the floor collapse. The reason Chandler offers no specific engineering details of what members would be involved in that jolt is because he needs to keep it at the simple level in order to perpetrate his theory. Once the walls were out of alignment there was no structure to jolt. And the floors couldn't offer this because they were unsupported. However a sharp eye will detect a very brief moment of contact right at the lowest fire level where the collapse squares-off and proceeds as one event. No mechanism except for ROOSD.

In examining the claim of the NIST theory of collapse, that fire weakened the steel and the top twelve floors fell as a solid block it is shown by the analyses by David Chandler, Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti to fail at every level.

The steel was not weakened by jet fuel fires which had lives too short to attain the critical temperatures for the necessary time.

If you look at the collapse video there was some serious heat causing the smoke billows on the SW corner. Something was burning hot there. Chandler has no clue what was burning where or how hot and what members were strained by having load shift passed onto them by the damaged members. Once again applying textbook theory to a dynamic event. What they are doing is forcing their most self-serving thin film of evaporating fuel model of burn-off but the real conditions are telling you it didn't happen that way. So is the smoke. (So is the molten metal in the South Tower)

The observed collapse was not one floor resulting in the top twelve acting as a solid block with 31g or thirty-one times its static or dead weight or load.

Except for the video that shows that. Tony never gets around to explaining exactly what it was. Instead he sort of suggests CD without explaining the exact process.

The hat trusses said to have weakened and sagged forty inches, in tests sagged two to six, and could not have initiated collapse absent significant weakening of core columns--likely by charges, as no other cause presents.

I disagree and think there was enough damage from the impact to sever many core columns plus heat.

Tests that no doubt favored Tony's evaporative film version of the fires and never included the furnace effect.

Claims by "investigators" who did not investigate fail: explosions were heard, evidence of charges was reported. The smooth collapse of the structure shows none of the "jolt" necessitated by the official explanation.

All too general to have any meaning.

The Pile Driver takes its place with the Magic Bullet, the Flat Earth, the Phlogiston theory of combustion in the gallery of hoaxes.

And at 411 Elm Street, every time the elevator door opens, P.T. Barnum gets his wings.

Unearned vs the facts in my opinion. It's damaging to Deep Political science to accept most-likely false theories too quickly IMO.