• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged David Chandler (ae911) sez "WTC7 was in free fall part of the time"

Hokulele said:
He isn't.




Nothing.




Yes.




Yes.
Click to expand...

Part two is coming out in 2 weeks where he discusses the ramifications of free-fall. I am assuming he thinks differently than you, or that would make for one boring video. :)
 
Many of the columns were already "taken out."

wtc7-side-damage1.jpg


The building fell where these columns were "taken out."

 
Sizzler said:
Part two is coming out in 2 weeks where he discusses the ramifications of free-fall.
Click to expand...


There are no ramifications. He may start speculating wildly, but the first draft of the NIST report allowed for a period of free-fall, they simply didn't quantify it. He really hasn't discovered anything new here.

I am assuming he thinks differently than you...
Click to expand...


Thank goodness.

...or that would make for one boring video. :)
Click to expand...


Yes, fiction is generally written to avoid boredom. ;)
 
Sizzler said:
Part two is coming out in 2 weeks where he discusses the ramifications of free-fall. I am assuming he thinks differently than you, or that would make for one boring video. :)
Click to expand...

I think you've hit on a new slogan!

Truthtm: At least we are not boring
 
Hokulele said:
There are no ramifications. He may start speculating wildly, but the first draft of the NIST report allowed for a period of free-fall, they simply didn't quantify it. He really hasn't discovered anything new here.
Click to expand...

Well, we'll see what he thinks in 2 weeks. A period of free-fall may be allowed, but 2.25 seconds seems like a long period to me, considering the total collapse time. I'll keep you posted.
 
Hokulele said:
There are no ramifications. He may start speculating wildly, but the first draft of the NIST report allowed for a period of free-fall, they simply didn't quantify it. He really hasn't discovered anything new here.
Click to expand...

Hokulele,

Do you know where in the report it allows for it? I would like to point it out to the woo at other sites.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
So David Chandler figured out that WTC 7's collapse slowed down as it progressed - how does that say inside job? On a personal note, I think someone as brain damaged as him should never teach children anything in school and it is proof that our educational system in the USA is crap since he does.
 
Mr.Herbert said:
Hokulele,

Do you know where in the report it allows for it? I would like to point it out to the woo at other sites.

Thanks.
Click to expand...


I was going from memory, and the bit I was thinking of didn't specify collapse times or acceleration. It is at the end of section 2.4 (page 20 in the PDF of the original draft report).

NIST NCSTAR 1A said:
The global collapse of WTC 7 was underway. The shell of exterior columns buckled between the 7th and 14th floors, as loads were redistributed to these columns due to the downward movement of the building core and the floors. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, completing the global collapse sequence.
Click to expand...


I had read this to mean that there either was no resistence, or very limited resistence, based on the description in the paragraphs immediately prior to this excerpt.

I will admit, the language they used wasn't as strong as I had remembered, so it isn't likely to be helpful to the debate. Ah well, the joys of aging.

On the other hand, I think the rest of this thread (now that they are merged) gives enough information to show why the numbers Chandler is promoting don't mean what he seems to think they mean.
 
Hokulele said:
I was going from memory, and the bit I was thinking of didn't specify collapse times or acceleration. It is at the end of section 2.4 (page 20 in the PDF of the original draft report).




I had read this to mean that there either was no resistence, or very limited resistence, based on the description in the paragraphs immediately prior to this excerpt.

I will admit, the language they used wasn't as strong as I had remembered, so it isn't likely to be helpful to the debate. Ah well, the joys of aging.

On the other hand, I think the rest of this thread (now that they are merged) gives enough information to show why the numbers Chandler is promoting don't mean what he seems to think they mean.
Click to expand...

Chandler isn't really promoting anything anymore. His prior results have more or less me confirmed by NIST;WTC7 was in free-fall for 2.25 seconds.

Now does that mean anything? You say no but your source from the WTC7 report does not explicitly back it up. I am very interestied to see what claims he makes in part 2 of his video. So far, he has been 1 for 1 (claims of free-fall certified by NIST). Perhaps he can make it 2 for 2. Or maybe not.
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
Chandler isn't really promoting anything anymore. His prior results have more or less me confirmed by NIST;WTC7 was in free-fall for 2.25 seconds.

Now does that mean anything? You say no but your source from the WTC7 report does not explicitly back it up. I am very interestied to see what claims he makes in part 2 of his video. So far, he has been 1 for 1 (claims of free-fall certified by NIST). Perhaps he can make it 2 for 2. Or maybe not.
Click to expand...

Have you read this entire thread? It has been merged, so I don't think you could have. Otherwise, you would know that what Chandler did was confirm NIST's computer modeling of the collapse. Please go back and read the whole thing.
 
By the way, according to 911Blogger, Chandler got his Masters in education from Claremont Graduate University. CGU has a formal relationship to share faculty with Claremont School of Theology where David Ray Griffin taught. Coincidence?
 
Last edited:
What I find amazing about this is that the "Truthers" never acknowledge their undocumented (and mistaken) assumption that buildings demolished by controlled demolition collapse at free fall speed. This seems to be treated as a given.
 
Brainster said:
What I find amazing about this is that the "Truthers" never acknowledge their undocumented (and mistaken) assumption that buildings demolished by controlled demolition collapse at free fall speed. This seems to be treated as a given.
Click to expand...

Not really. A building demolished by CD does not collapse at free fall acceleration. At CD you suddenly and simultaneously remove (normally by explosives - it is the easiest and safest way) a certain number of primary structural parts, supporting columns, at the bottom of the structure, so that the structure above, supported by these columns, can drop down a bit due to gravity (you release the potential energy in the structure above). Only when the structure above drops due gravity without contacting anything below there is free fall - and it is a very short time. As soon as the structure above contacts the intact structure below, normally the ground, it is decelerated, slowed down, as it is crushed. To crush the structure you need energy and in CD the energy is provided by the potential energy released by the CD. The crushing due to gravity plus resistance due crushing takes time (plenty of parts to rip apart) ... and will thus prevent free fall acceleration! It is clearly seen at most CDs! So no free fall at CDs!

As Chandler observes the upper structure of WTC7 accelerating during 2.25 seconds at free fall acceleration, you (or any thinking person) should ask; what is happening here? Either there is no structure being crushed at all below the top structure above (that looks to be intact during the observations) - and that is unlikely - or there is a force apart from gravity below pulling down the top structure of WTC7.

What can that force be? It is not gravity, for sure.
 
Heiwa said:
As Chandler observes the upper structure of WTC7 accelerating during 2.25 seconds at free fall acceleration, you (or any thinking person) should ask; what is happening here? Either there is no structure being crushed at all below the top structure above (that looks to be intact during the observations) - and that is unlikely - or there is a force apart from gravity below pulling down the top structure of WTC7.
Click to expand...

So are you implying that anybody who disagrees with you, even those emmenently qualified to make the observations, aren't 'thinking people'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom