• 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"

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.

What can that force be? It is not gravity, for sure.
Click to expand...

So, what is this force? An invisible foot from above? A giant, yet silent, vacuum cleaner from below? Please, enlighten us.
 
Heiwa said:
What can that force be? It is not gravity, for sure.
Click to expand...

Super duper hushaboom pulling explosives™.

Last time I checked, gravity is what is responsible for freefall speed. Do you need a lesson in basic physics Mr. Engineer?
 
tfk said:
According to an e-mail that I received from Mr. Phillips, it appears that he has decided to not debate in this forum or in personal emails.

This is a phenomenon that mystifies me. I suggested to a person that I was debating on another forum that he fetch a mechanical or structural engineer from AE911 to come over & debate. A couple of their engineers sent over some cryptic questions about format for the debate. I suggested "conversation". And then they declined.

It is astonishing that, on a subject that they seem so convinced, and one that is so crucially important to our country (should their theories be true, I'd be first in line with a pitchfork & torch), they appear to be singularly uninterested or lazy in applying themselves to any real analysis.
Click to expand...

Because you do not 'debate' here at this forum. You 'attack' and 'put down' persons wishing dignified debate using scientific knowledge and logical rejoinder. You smack them with your laughing dogs, dodging serious rebuttals in the process. If you have any rules of debate here, they are certainly not enforced.

I don't blame Mark Phillips or David S Chandler and many others for refusing to put up with it. No, I am certainly not placing myself in their categories. I am just a lay person without extensive technical training; but every person should be free from harassment and ridicule in a search for truth.That they will not receive here.

I am surprised that Heiwa and a few other earnest scientists here put up with the ridicule and non-scientific attacks and glad handing and circle jerking. But I do enjoy their input and honest attempts at true science. Many others loiter here, reading some of the earnest attempts at truthseeking, with no interest whatsoever in putting up with the dishonest and endless contemptuous mockery.
 
SPreston said:
I am surprised that Heiwa and a few other earnest scientists here put up with the ridicule and non-scientific attacks and glad handing and circle jerking. But I do enjoy their input and honest attempts at true science. Many others loiter here, reading some of the earnest attempts at truthseeking, with no interest whatsoever in putting up with the dishonest and endless contemptuous mockery.
Click to expand...

Earnest scientist? Heiwa? You mean the guy who compared the WTC to pizza boxes? The one who wanted everyone to jump on there scales?

He deserves nothing but mockery for these experiments.
 
SPreston said:
Because you do not 'debate' here at this forum. You 'attack' and 'put down' persons wishing dignified debate using scientific knowledge and logical rejoinder. You smack them with your laughing dogs, dodging serious rebuttals in the process. If you have any rules of debate here, they are certainly not enforced.
Click to expand...

Could you show us where this has happened on this forum? (keep in mind the bold portions).
 
~enigma~ said:
Super duper hushaboom pulling explosives™.

Last time I checked, gravity is what is responsible for freefall speed. Do you need a lesson in basic physics Mr. Engineer?
Click to expand...

No, gravity is not responsible for freefall speed and I don't need any lesson in basic physics to know that. Pls, check again.
 
DGM said:
Hey;
This is the first thing I've seen you get right. Congratulation's.
Click to expand...

What is responsible for the acceleration up to freefall speed in a building collapse?

Unless you are going to say there were explosives in WTC 7, what was the only force that was acting?
 
Last edited:
~enigma~ said:
What is responsible for the acceleration up to freefall speed in a building collapse?

Unless you are going to say there were explosives in WTC 7, what was the only force that was acting?
Click to expand...
Gravity is responsible for the acceleration but not the final speed (You got to give him this small victory). Hey even a blind squirrel finds a nut some times.
 
DGM said:
Gravity is responsible for the acceleration but not the final speed (You got to give him this small victory). Hey even a blind squirrel finds a nut some times.
Click to expand...

What force besides gravity is responsible. Are you going to answer the question? There is no victory to be had or are you of the idea that it is us vs. them and someone must be victorious?

ETA - You mean acceleration has nothing to do with the final speed?!
 
~enigma~ said:
What is responsible for the acceleration up to freefall speed in a building collapse?

Unless you are going to say there were explosives in WTC 7, what was the only force that was acting?
Click to expand...

As I explained earlier, gravity force alone cannot produce free fall acceleration of a building structural collapse, as the building collapse itself, 10 000's of steel parts and their connections being deformed, bent, buckled, ripped apart, etc., will retard and brake the displacements, movements and accelerations of the parts that make up the total structure.

Explosives will likewise not produce free fall acceleration! They may produce local failures of parts supporting the structure and assist a CD but the result will never be free fall acceleration of the top part as observed by Chandler and confirmed by NIST in WTC7.

I like Chandler's analysis. He, and NIST, should extend and apply the same method to study conventional CDs! They will find that any structure destroyed by CD never free falls at acceleration = g = 9.81 m/s². Except WTC7. Strange?

WTC7 thus drops much too fast to be a CD. So there must be some other force than gravity pulling down the top part (that we see) and removing the bottom structure (that we cannot see) during the destruction.

But we can see parts of the bottom structure after destruction in the rubble. And I have never seen anything like it (on photos)! Big chuncks of strucural parts sheared off away from a solid connection, etc, etc. A rubble chunck consisting of a column + four floor girders sheard off at six loctions; the column above/below the common joint and the four girders away from the common joint. What forces/energy caused that?

That's the question. And the answer is quite obvious. Curious? I will enligthen you in my next posting. But a clue! Who or what has the technology to produce the rubble seen in WTC7?
 
Wait a minute, everyone, wait a minute... Chandler found a limited period of free fall in the 7 World Trade collapse, and it's supposed to suggest explosives? If so, why's the free fall period of time only a portion of the total collapse event? Is the conspiratorial argument that they only demolished part of the building?

Mackey pointed this out earlier, and I've yet to see a satisfactory response: Any small period of free-fall does not automatically mean explosives. At best, it means the portion collapsing was temporarily unsupported. Can someone provide a real explanation for why this period of free-fall is supposed to be significant, and how it supposedly indicates demolitions? Because if the best answer is that the building was supposed to resist collapse progression and no more, then the leap to demolitions is still missing for the reasons it's always been missing: There's no proof that the resistance was eliminated via demolitions or incendiaries. And it doesn't take into account the collapse propogation scenario as described by NIST.

So what is significant about Chandler's find?
 
~enigma~ said:
What force besides gravity is responsible. Are you going to answer the question? There is no victory to be had or are you of the idea that it is us vs. them and someone must be victorious?

ETA - You mean acceleration has nothing to do with the final speed?!
Click to expand...

No, of course not. Resistance (air or whatever) determines the final speed. In a vacuum this would not be the case and he would be wrong.
 
DGM said:
No, of course not. Resistance (air or whatever) determines the final speed. In a vacuum this would not be the case and he would be wrong.
Click to expand...

Not at all. You are confusing terminal velocity with freefall. Maybe you need that basic physics class like Heiwa.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Wait a minute, everyone, wait a minute... Chandler found a limited period of free fall in the 7 World Trade collapse, and it's supposed to suggest explosives? If so, why's the free fall period of time only a portion of the total collapse event? Is the conspiratorial argument that they only demolished part of the building?

Mackey pointed this out earlier, and I've yet to see a satisfactory response: Any small period of free-fall does not automatically mean explosives. At best, it means the portion collapsing was temporarily unsupported. Can someone provide a real explanation for why this period of free-fall is supposed to be significant, and how it supposedly indicates demolitions? Because if the best answer is that the building was supposed to resist collapse progression and no more, then the leap to demolitions is still missing for the reasons it's always been missing: There's no proof that the resistance was eliminated via demolitions or incendiaries. And it doesn't take into account the collapse propogation scenario as described by NIST.

So what is significant about Chandler's find?
Click to expand...
Have no idea. Chandler pretty much says that as the collapse progressed the resistance increased. He should be hated by all those who believe in MIHOP for being a bootlicking sellout to the NWO.
 
I can't stress enough that IMO anybody who accuses people of complicity in mass murder on the kind of 'evidence' presented by truthers here deserves ridicule, Spreston. sorry you don't like it.
 
DGM said:
Are you saying that resistance (air or other) has nothing to do with the speed of freefall?:confused:
Click to expand...

Air resistance is what causes teminal velocity, freefall has no upper limit (unless you want to claim an object in freefall will ever approach light speed). I really think you should learn what your talking about before you look really foolish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom