Comments on: Leaning Tower of Pisa

By: Chuck Boldwyn

Chuck Boldwyn — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:16:48 +0000

@admin
My final conclusion, Peter, is that you must be a government shill artist trying to divert concerned citizens away from the truth of the towers being explosively demolished.

Also, your physics makes no sense to this 30 year physics instructor, and this is just elementary physics, super elementary.

Did you take one class in high school and then you were a real physicist. Sounds that way. Most people do not know to judge that your analyses are plain stupid and pure non science. Anyone with a real physics backgroound will be able to see your analyses as totally fooolish, the actions and dialouge of a self centered, egotistical clown.

By: Chuck Boldwyn

Chuck Boldwyn — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:21:17 +0000

@admin
Check out my new reply referencing John Skilling, the same as all of my other blogs, not change from my Thesis.

True, I had problems with my School Principal. I was a Whistle Blower going up against an entrenched politically connected machine. It had nothing to do with my competence as a AP Physics and Chemistry Instructor. By the way that Principle, eventually got fired when a new Superintendent was hired, along with many of the other cronies that supported him in the highly corrupt school system.

Evidently you never really read my thesis, within which John Skilling is my number one referenced and quoted source.
Check it out. You will see that I merely derived the Tower strength Equation that John Skilling put into words when he made his announcements concerning the Towers

What are your credentials and experience to be criticizing me.

Chuck Boldwyn

By: Chuck Boldwyn

Chuck Boldwyn — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:10:55 +0000

This debunk is addressed to the author of the original article:
Theist Free.

If the columns of the WTC Twin Towers were bolted together vertically with 4 large blots, all of the vertical columns, as we saw from the photos of the demolished remnants, and you say that they could be rather easily broken with applied shear forces, then why did they never break in the Towers many years of service, when they were repeatedly subjected to the stupendous and powerful wind shearing forces, pushing forces, twisting forces that they experienced.

That argument you have made, about those 4 bolts breaking, does not stand up under scientific scrutiny, like I have just made about the awesome shearing and pushing forces associated with the winds, even hurricane forces, that the custom anti-shear forces design easily withstood.
The tower, as specifically custom designed, was 16 times stiffer than any tower previously constructed, as John Skilling and his assistant Engineers had announced, based on actual wind testing. No bolts holding the vertical columns ever even came close to breaking during its long history of wind-shear forces deflecting and absorbing service.

Your argument has no scientific basis, in fact, and is 100% debunked.
Your postulate or fairy tale thinking sounds like it could be true to an untrained and uneducated reader, but no competent scientist would remotely accept you bolt breaking shear forces thesis. Skilling announced the Towers awesome shear forces resistence to the mass media. Do some research to see what the facts are, please…

Also, John Skilling announced the following:

(1) “Live-Loads on these columns can be increased more that 2000% before failure occurs.”

This is a mathematical expression or Equation, stated in words, just like a Physics homework word problem from high school Physics textbooks and is translated thusly:

(1) (Live-Load(110) x 2000% = Failure-Load(110) = Collapse-Load(110)

now flip this Equation in the horizontal plane.

(1) Collapse-Load(110) = 2000% x Live-Load(110)

now use abbreviations and the Equation contracts to:

(1) CL(110) = 20 x LL(110)

Additionally, Ronald Hamburger, a 911 Commission Report Scientist said that the Live-Load for a Twin Tower was equal to 5 times the Dead-Load which then translates into the following sub-Equation:

(2) LL(110) = 5 x DL(110)

Now substitute Equation (2) into Equation (1):

(3) CL(110) = 20 x (5 x DL(110)) = 100 DL(110)

And there you have the John Skilling Equation that explains the incredible strength of a massively redundant and overbuilt Twin Tower.

(3) CL(110) = 100 DL(110)

and stated in a ratio of forces manner to get the Engineering Efficiency for the structure.

(4) [CL(110)/DL(110)] = 100 = Efficiency = WTC TT Safety Factor

This translates into the fact that a Twin Tower could support the equivalent gravity based weight of 100 Twin Towers before total collapse might occur. Wow!!! what a powerfully strong Tower…ueu

Amen, and that settles the issue over the gravity based and shear based strength and anti-collapse resistance of the Towers

Debunking the above will be directly debunking John Skilling and Ronald Hamburger, not me, Chuck Boldwyn, the author of this piece and my basic thesis for the Impossibility of collapse of the WTC TT by the original thesis of the Government and the mass media and the hired, government employed or payrolled PHDs, like Shyam Sunder and Richard Eager, and many others.

If you wish to attempt a debunk, please use quantitative physics and math and not qualitative fairy tales and unprovable theories, like the NIST Report did with their tweaked computer-simulated cartoon animation scenarios.

Check out my Thesis at:

http://www.freeamerican.com/Images/911Boldwynn.PDF

where all of the related Energy and related variables calculations are displayed for your evaluation.

Chuck Boldwyn
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor/Researcher
cboldwyn@bellsouth.net

By: admin

admin — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:20:54 +0000

I noticed you have been spaming many a blog with the same cut and paste argument.

It take it Mr Boldwyn you have designed many a building in your time? What is that?…… NO… And yet YOU a “retired” high school chemistry teacher proposes that people who actually DO design and build tall and massive structures are wrong in their assessment of the WTC collapse. I guess the saying is true, ‘Those who can’t do… Teach”.

And is it not true you could not even keep your job teaching high school kids? That you were dismissed for “gross insubordination; and violation of School Board Rules” ? Could it be an effect of “Paint fumes” that you have jumped onto the loony end of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist types”

Until you can prove your worth as an expert on the same level as the REAL experts like John Skilling, I’m afraid you will be taken seriously by no one. Just another professional who had to go into teaching because he was not good enough for the real work.

I suggest you contact the engineers at NIST who did the paper, they may be able to enlighten you beyond your teacher level of engineering knowledge as to why the towers fell the way they did. Never to late to learn.

Or you could go to http://www.layscience.net/node/124 where comment shows the huge errors in logic and science of your argument.

QUOTE: Just passing by, after all
Submitted by Peter on Sat, 10/18/2008 – 00:35.
Just passing by, after all this months. Let’s pick up the funs stuff again. I’ll take up the challenge.

Mildly put, Boldwyn’s analysis is flawed at several levels. To be fair, it is complete rubbish:

1) His analisys is static; he only considers static loads. (Put your left thumb on the table and take a hammer in your right hand. Lay the hammer on your left thumb. Now, raise your right hand, and smash the hammer onto your left thumb. That’s the difference between static and dynamic load your are feeling). He should have studied the dynamic load, that is, the forces excerted on a concrete floor that is hit by ~20-30 stories piece of skycraper that is racing towards earth.

2) His static analysis is flawed, again at several levels:
a) He claims that Live weight = 5 times the Dead weight. (5 being the alledged safety factor given by Ronald Hamberger: “before being damaged, the Towers could support 5 times their own weights.”)

This claim is plain silly. The live weight equals the dead weight PLUS the weight of the furniture etc.

b) Already going astray with the live weight, he now is completely losing it with this “Collapse Load” thing.

He computes the live load of the lower 95 floors “giving 31 Force Units of upward Anti-Collapse Force, also termed Supportive Force”, A Force Unit being defined as the dead weight of the upper 15 floors.

Boldwyn does not seem to have understood the significance of his opening definitions F = mg, F = ma and Action = – Reaction.

For if the lower 95 floors excert an upward force on the upper 15 floors 31 times the dead weight of the upper 15 floors these lower floors will excert an upward force of 31/5=6 times the live weight of the upper 15 floors. By F = ma, F being 6 times greater than the weight mg, the upper floors would be propelled upwards by 5 g’s. In reallity, in a static situation, the upward force the lower 95 floors excert on the upper 15 floors are exactly equal but opposite: Action = -Reaction. As when a hammer rests on a table: the upfwards force that the table excerts on the hammer is exactly equal (but opposite in direction) to the weight of the hammer.

Even more of this earth he gets (by 126 g’s, as we will show) when he computes the “Collapse Load” of the lower 95 floors. This “CL_95″ quantity is defined to be 20 times the live load (“LL_95″) of the 95 lower floors and computed to equal 633 times the dead weight of the upper 15 floors. Giving us “633 FU (of anti-collapse Force of Resistance or Collapse-Load, In Force Units, that are in multiples of one 15-Floor-Block)”. After this masterpiece of number jugling the lower 95 floors excert a force 633 times greater than the dead weight of the upper 15 floors. By virtue of F = ma, this means the upper 15 floors are propelled upwards by a force 633/5=127 times larger than its weight, giving it an accelaration of 126 g’s. That’s going to take him of this earth quite rapidly indeed.

In reality, Action = – Reaction holds. The force the lower 95 excert on the upper 15 floors is exactly equal to the weight of the upper 15 floors, albeit opposite in direction.

If Boldwyn where right we could fill the lower 95 floors with molten lead, greatly increasing the live weight of the lower 95 floors, thus greatly increasing the Collapse Load of the lower 95 floors, thus making the building even more resiliant to collapse.

Molten lead doesn’t add to the structural strength of a building.

I reallity, the resiliance of a building to collapse is determined by the stresses the materials it is made of are capable to sustain without breaking or buckling, not by the weight of lower floors multiplied by several safety factors from different sources.

c) Boldwyn doesn’t take the structural damage and weakening done by the airliners and subsequent fires into account. As if a statement that a building is capable of carrying its own weight 5 times over still holds after it has been hit and set ablaze by an airliner.

Boldwyn’s “careful analysis” is thus just crap.

In fact, it scores nicely on the crackpot index: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html. All this Physics textbook definitions that he doesn’t use and violates in his analysis, the Great Self Defined Concepts, with initial caps and all. Great points.

By: Chuck Boldwyn

Chuck Boldwyn — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:24:01 +0000

The Equation that explains why the WTC Twin Towers could not possibly collapse according to the NIST, Popular Mechanics, Government, Academic and Industrial PHDs from pland crashes and fires, even is the top 15 floors were completely severed and fell on top of the 95 floor block is as follows:

CL(95) = 20 x LL(95) = 20 x 5 x DL(95) = 100 x DL(95) = 100 x (95/15)x DL(15) = 633 x DL(15)

20 = John Skilling Support Force Factor (WTC Chief Engineer & Properties Tester)
5 = Ronald McDonald Support Force Factor (Nist 911 Commission Report Science Guy)

CL = Collapse Load
LL = Live Load
DL = Dead Load
110 = 110 Floor WTC Steel Tower
95 = 95 Floor lower Block (after crash)
15 = 15 Floor upper Block (after crash)

It would take as least 633 15-Floor-Steel-Blocks or their Force Equivalent pushing down on top of the 95-Floor-Steel-Block before total collapse might occur.

Data was obtained from the Mass-Media and the Equation was derived by Chuck Boldwyn, retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor.
If you are interested in all of the details, which would include photos, graphics, tables, graphs, equations, calculations and Analogy comparisons, you may request a emailed copy of my MS Word document as a scientific research paper to be sent to your email address.
If you are a NIST devotee you will be stunned by what you discover in my paper.
I welcome all potential debunkers to read my paper and walk away still believing that the Twin Towers were not blown up by bombs and steel cutter charges.

Chuck Boldwyn
cboldwyn@bellsouth.net
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 07:18:24 +0000

“Fact is the better educated you are the less you are inclined to buy the controlled demolition scam and conspiracy theories in general. Fake moon landings, JFK plots, chemtrails are ALL bugaboos of the cognitive lower class. ”

You mean better “brainwashed”. 9/11, the Moon Landings and JFK’s head shot all violate physics according to the official Governments Conspiracy Theories. I am well educated and this is simple physics.

Amerika = The New Fascist State

Bush is a traitor, murderer and war criminal. The man should be hunted down and jailed for his treason.

By: admin

admin — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 06:09:06 +0000

“Galileo’s championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime.”

Not among scientist of the time, only the church and the so call common man.

Same as todays, there is NO controversy among scientist and engineers as to what brought down the towers. Only the religion of 9/11 truth finds it does not fit their conspiracy theorist dogma.

Fact is the better educated you are the less you are inclined to buy the controlled demolition scam and conspiracy theories in general. Fake moon landings, JFK plots, chemtrails are ALL bugaboos of the cognitive lower class.

By: admin

admin — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 05:51:32 +0000

“Are you actually comparing the Leaning Tower of Pisa to any of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11/01?”

No I am pointing out the fact large tall buildings can NOT simple fall over as many truthers (like David Ray Griffin) have claimed. Size changes the physical realities of structures. A version of the WTC built to say the height of the Pisa tower would behave in a different manner than the full size structure, even if every beam wall, nut and bolt were scaled to exact proportion. This is why scale modeling has been abandoned for computer modeling.

“What are you saying? That they used a Factor of Safety of 1.1 when they designed the towers? Do you happen to know what Factor of Safety was used for the structure? I don’t, I am just asking.”

I think the towers were not the hight of super strong construction. And from what I have read from structural engineers who have experience in these sort of buildings the WTC was not overly robust, not like some older buildings constructed in the traditional grid fashion. Office space was the prime criteria of the towers.

“Why do you care what “story” people believe about 9/11? It makes no difference to me, I just don’t see why all the fuss to support the “official” story.”

There is no “official story” as the truthers like to call it. Only a story that is based on facts and real science. And it is backed by not just the government but by the brightest and the best in the fields of engineering, building construction, fire investigation and even controlled demolition. The conspiracy theorist only have wild hypothesis from theologians, failed professors and engineers who have built nothing more than 3 story fast food places.

Ask yourself why the truthers can not get anyone of real worth to back them up?

The 9/11 truth thing is stupidity, pure and simple. And stupidity be it form the likes of GWB of the local conspiracy theorist loony is a right everyone has, but I have the right to point out that stupidity. The sad part is it has become a thing of the liberal side and it makes progressives look like the “Loony Left” conservatives love so much.

If you think 9/11 was this BIG conspiracy by the US government then… Prove It… Don’t expect thinking people to take silly questions seriously.

As for my style of blogging, it sucks!. I do not type well and my mind works faster then I can put the words out, I have learned to not sweat it and just try and make myself clear, doesn’t work all the time but, so be it.

By: Geezerpower

Geezerpower — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:26:59 +0000

Strange that you would mention Galileo, a man who was denounced in the 1600′s for Copernian beliefs. Galileo was persecuted for his belief that the earth orbited around the sun and was estranged by (debunkers) to the point that he was even denied medical help.

Galileo’s championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo’s presentation of heliocentrism as proven fact resulted in the Catholic Church’s prohibiting its advocacy as empirically proven fact, because it was not empirically proven at the time and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture. Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Roman Inquisition.

BTW Arthur is promoting the official story, but give him a break. Nobody in their right mind would compare the leaning tower of piza to the collapse of the WTC…G:

By: Chuck Boldwyn

Chuck Boldwyn — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:38:58 +0000

A World Trade Center Tower
was capable of Loading
more than 100 times
its own 110 Floor weight, stacked on top of itself.
Definitions:

DL110 = Dead Load WTC
= Weight Unoccupied
LL110 = Live Load WTC
= (Fully-Occupied
& Furnished
CL110 = Collapse Load for 110
Floor WTC
= (20*LL110)
= (20*(5*DL110))
= 100*DL110
means you could stack 100 WTCs on top of the original WTC before possible collapse may occur
__________________________________

DL15 = Weight of top 15-Floor-Block
= 1 Force Unit for
all these calculations
DL95 = Weight of the lower
95-Floor-Block unoccupied,
& unfurnished
DL95 = (95/15)*DL15
= 6.33*DL15
LL95 = Weight of 95-Floor-Block
occupied and furnished
= 5*DL95
CL95 = 20*LL95/DL15 = (20*5*DL95)
= (20)*(5)*(6.33*DL15)
= 633*DL15

The lower 95-Floor-Steel-Block was
capable of Loading more than
633 Upper 15-Floor-Blocks,
before Collapse Load (CL) was a possibility.

CL95 = (20*LL95/DL15)
= (20*(5*DL95)/DL15))
= 20*5*6.33*DL15
= 633*DL15

This means that one could stack at least 633 15-Floor-Blocks on top of the 95-Floor-Block below before gravity collapse were possible.

Also, to get total collapse, one would have to drop the 15-Floor-Block from a height of at least 633 meters above the 95-Floor-Block to get possible total collapse.

For Total Collapse of 95-Floor-Block, the Force & Energy calculations are as follows:

F = m*g = 633*DL15 in pounds or Newtons
W = E = F*h = DL15*(633m)in Foot-Pounds or Newton-meters or Joules

Conclusion:
It is impossible for the WTC, either one, to totally collapse strictly from the gravity weight of one 15-Floor-Block, even falling from a much greater height than many floors of elevation. One would need to drop the 15-Floor-Block from at least 633 meters above the 95-Floor-Blook to achieve total collapse, possibly.

Researched by Chuck Boldwyn
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor
Dated: 8-29-08
cboldwyn@bellsouth.net
Please contact me for all your comments and replys agreement or disagreement & for further explanations and details.
I will be publishing my Scientific findings on a personal web site I am now working on, hopefully within the next couple of weeks

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:32:02 +0000

Are you actually comparing the Leaning Tower of Pisa to any of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11/01? Well, they are all buildings. They all have (had) to support their own structure as well as any other loads imposed on them. A bigger (taller) building has to be that much stronger at the base to support all that is above it. OK, gotcha. And your point is what? That the Twin Towers were so big that they were barely able to support their own weight and the planes and fires were the proverbial straws that broke their proverbial camels’ backs?

“The WTC achieved its strength not by over engineering but by a clever design that made optimum use of a center core and an outer box wall design.”

What are you saying? That they used a Factor of Safety of 1.1 when they designed the towers? Do you happen to know what Factor of Safety was used for the structure? I don’t, I am just asking.

What is your definition of “over engineering”? Are you an engineer? If so, you don’t seem to understand some of the most basic concepts, or at least you act like you just read about them before you wrote this post.

Just curious, and it has nothing to do with my other questions, so feel free to ignore this, but are you a native English speaker? If so, your writing style is very odd, especially in your Q&A with Boris. Are you from the United States? If not, why is this topic so important to you? Why do you care what “story” people believe about 9/11? It makes no difference to me, I just don’t see why all the fuss to support the “official” story. The US Government seems to be doing a fine job on their own, I don’t think they need your “help”.

By: Boris Epstein

Boris Epstein — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 02:56:44 +0000

Ken,

My guess is you’ll end up having plenty of coffee before Admin here gives a meaningful response to your questions and challenges. The same likely holds for me.

By: Ken D. Webber

Ken D. Webber — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:32:16 +0000

I’m still waiting for your “pancakes” Admin. Can I get some coffee with that?

By: Boris Epstein

Boris Epstein — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:20:37 +0000

At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch9.htm

Admin,

Never mind what I am saying – here the 9/11 Commission out (you know, the guys whose work you seem to be defending).

Now your guesses about me are off again, by about a mile or possibly more. I’d be lying if I said I was surprised, though – this seems to be a pattern you are unwilling or unable to break. You see, there’s a term for this activity, for trying to build one’s imaginary world to one’s own liking… what term would that be, Admin? Does “willful delusion” sound good to you? Sounds pretty accurate to me…

By: admin

admin — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:08:33 +0000

“I don’t know about Ken but personally I have not surrendered my ability for thinking independently to experts.”

A and yet YOU are the one who say the towers collapse in 10 seconds. And the reason? Some conspiracy theorist site told you it took 10 seconds, and they based it on a mistaken quote from the 911 commission report.

On the other I looked at many videos of the collapse and did logical thing……. I counted the time it took, and it was way over 10 seconds. I pointed this out long before the NIST report came out

You are the guys who claim “Thermite” was used! Not that you know anything about thermite or why it’s never use for controlled demolitions. NO you guys parrot the claim because “Steven (cold fusion) Jones” said so, WOW talk about sheep.

“General command of logic and analytical abilities is key, though.”

Except you have proven to have none of these.

I can “opine” on how to play golf, but would you take my advice over say Tiger Woods?

By: Boris Epstein

Boris Epstein — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:32:54 +0000

Admin,

You say,

“So Ken where are those demolition experts that support your view, you said there were a bunch of them. Funny how no one who actually do controlled demolitions, (you know guys who know what they are talking about) look at the WTC and say “these were a controlled demolition””

I don’t know about Ken but personally I have not surrendered my ability for thinking independently to experts. And something as simple as elementary physics tells me that the official version of the collapse of the three towers (sequential collapse, several mutations thereof) is simply not possible.

As for the experts – one does not need to be in the specific controlled demolition field to be able to competently opine on the matter. A good knowledge of physics is sufficient (think Prof. Steven Jones). Military background and experience with explosives is helpful (think Jesse Ventura and many others). General command of logic and analytical abilities is key, though.