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

[boloboffin]

If I make an occasional appearance it is because I have something to say or some record to set straight. I'm responding here to what I perceived as a civil post on your part. However, I don't find it stimulating, entertaining, or even tolerable to subject myself to an environment where verbal abuse is the norm. (Just stand back and read the neighboring posts on this page. Do you guys go home and beat your wives and kids? Is one of you named Troy?) This forum is sick. IMHO the verbal abuse is encouraged by the culture of unaccountable anonymity. You guys are making a mockery of yourselves.

And you, sir, believe the WTC buildings were knocked down by explosives.

 

[davidschandler48]

And you, sir, believe the WTC buildings were knocked down by explosives.

That's exactly right. I believe that because the evidence is overwhelming that that is what happened.

What I would like to hear from members of this forum is why they feel that belief that the buildings were brought down by explosives (whether true or not) serves to invalidate a person who has that belief. Is it a patriotism thing? Is it a clique thing? Have I offended the dictates of some guru?

The problem with having dialog with a "debunker" is that debunking implies that the chosen target of the exercise is "bunk." That's not much of a starting position for real dialog.

Note that your minimally civil comment elicited another round from me.

--David Chandler
(That's who I really am. Who are you???)

 

[Heiwa]

I think it is rather significant that NIST redid their analysis based on my work. Don't you? Their original work was either so shoddy or so fraudulent that letting it stand apparently became untenable. That's how I read it, anyway.

...

I do in fact enjoy intellectual sparring with people who hold contrary views, when conducted in an atmosphere of honesty and mutual respect, or at least bare civility. But I'm not sick enough to need the collective approval of this forum.
--David Chandler
(That's who I really am. Who are you???)

Your work is much appreciated as in the preliminary WTC 7 report NIST suggested that upper part displaced/accelerated down at less than g. Then, in the final WTC 7 report, NIST suggests that the upper part free falls at g for 2.25 seconds thanks to your intervention.
However, NIST has not re-done the structural damage analysis based on the final finding of free fall. A structure that free falls is not subject to any internal forces due to gravity. In spite of this evident fact NIST suggests that the free falling structure not only deforms but that plenty of elements fail and connections are ripped apart. This cannot happen in a free falling structure. Thus, NIST should re-do their structural damage analysis.

 

[Oscar]

Heiwa:

Thus, NIST should re-do their structural damage analysis.

Hundreds of experts should redo their work?

Your analysis is worthless.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 12

End of story.

 

[Baylor]

That's exactly right. I believe that because the evidence is overwhelming that that is what happened.

What I would like to hear from members of this forum is why they feel that belief that the buildings were brought down by explosives (whether true or not) serves to invalidate a person who has that belief.

Because it is an extremely bizarre and flat-out disgusting belief that ridicules the victims of 9/11. I'm not going to speculate why people believe it--whether it's a political agenda or some desire to be a knight in shining armor--all I know is what doesn't make them believe it--evidence. I provided you footage of the inside of WTC 7 on 9/11 which shows (not surprisingly) the building was not rigged for a controlled demolition. No stripped columns, no wiring, no "cutter charges", just a vacant building. You have yet to respond. You've also been asked how all the equipment necessary for a controlled demolition could survive an out-of-control fire. You also did not respond. Here they are again Mr. Chandler. I know you are not killtown so I don't expect some no-response response. I fully expect you to respond and explain why the footage doesn't show what your theory would predict.

 

[bill smith]

Tfk: Please comment on the veracity of this citation. If it is a clerical error, please cite the correct figure, the correct page and the correct document.

--David Chandler

Before you go I just wanted to show you this video of the antenna falling into the body of WTC1 before there is any other apparent movement of the building. I imagine you've seen it before but I just wanted to be sure that you have. I believe rthat this shows that core columns were melted directly below the hat truss somewhere in the crash zone allowing the antenna to fall free. This is somewhat supported by there being no visible rotation of the top of the building. I think it's worth a good look in fullscreen. Cheers, bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

 

[boloboffin]

Before you go I just wanted to show you this video of the antenna falling into the body of WTC1 before there is any other apparent movement of the building. I imagine you've seen it before but I just wanted to be sure that you have. I believe rthat this shows that core columns were melted right below the hat truss allowing the antenna to fall free. This is somewhat supported by there being no visible rotation of the top of the building. I think it's worth a good look in fullscreen. Cheers, bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

Oh, bill. WTC1 started collapsing on the other side.

I uploaded that image to my Photobucket account over three years ago.

 

[bill smith]

Oh, bill. WTC1 started collapsing on the other side.

[qimg]http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Bowing.jpg[/qimg]

I uploaded that image to my Photobucket account over three years ago.

I didn't notice any rotation at the visible parapet of the building that might reflect a major shift on the opposite side. I think it might be possible to establish data points in that video I showed and make some measurements qua
contraction of the upper block by at least a third prior to collapse onset of the main building. This alone would put Bazant's 'rigid block' out in the cold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k Antenna slow motion

 

[beachnut]

...
I do in fact enjoy intellectual sparring with people who hold contrary views, when conducted in an atmosphere of honesty and mutual respect, or at least bare civility. But I'm not sick enough to need the collective approval of this forum.
--David Chandler
(That's who I really am. Who are you???)

You have no evidence for controlled demolition. You have a delusion based on no evidence. Is that a delusional opinion, or a failed opinion?

I am known on the Internet by name if you have the capability to research and use logic. I am an engineer, an airline transport pilot, a trained aircraft accident investigator and you are full of junk ideas on 911. Why are your ideas based on failed opinions, hearsay, lies and delusions; not physics? Your failure to present evidence to support your delusion is due to what? Is it extreme political bias or some other problem? It is that failure to present viable evidence that makes your claims pure delusions.

Being an engineer, an airline transport pilot, and a trained aircraft accident investigator are perfect for understanding 911; why does a high school physics teacher fails to grasp reality and fall for bat crazy conspiracy theories?

Stating your name only identifies who has the moronic delusions and will not make them come true. Your videos are political diatribes better suited for protesting wars where opinions and ideals count. Protesting war is much more worthwhile than make up lies about 911 like you do with faulty logic and moronic conclusions.

You can figure out my name by doing some real research and the FAA list my ATP by name. Good luck in your 8th year of failure.

I respect you; my favorite teachers were physics teachers/professors! But your ideas? Your ideas on 911 are delusions. If you could prove different you would have a Pulitzer Prize. Did you apply?

That's exactly right. I believe that because the evidence is overwhelming that that is what happened.

...

I have seen your long list of overwhelming evidence! It starts like this.
1.
And ends immediately. Called the null set, empty set, nil, zero, zilch!

Like the silent explosives of your fantasy CD conspiracy, your overwhelming evidence does not exist or you would list it.

 

[alienentity]

That's exactly right. I believe that because the evidence is overwhelming that that is what happened.

What I would like to hear from members of this forum is why they feel that belief that the buildings were brought down by explosives (whether true or not) serves to invalidate a person who has that belief. Is it a patriotism thing? Is it a clique thing? Have I offended the dictates of some guru?

The problem with having dialog with a "debunker" is that debunking implies that the chosen target of the exercise is "bunk." That's not much of a starting position for real dialog.

Note that your minimally civil comment elicited another round from me.

--David Chandler
(That's who I really am. Who are you???)

Interesting that you'd like to have questions answered yet are unwilling to do the same when asked. Of course I understand if you feel more comfortable posting in a more receptive environment (somewhere in the truthersphere) but you can't hide on truther sites forever.

Sometime, someday, you're going to have to face people who are hostile to your conclusions. That's just a fact.
IMHO, if you're going to publish media that purport to show your government murdered 3000 citizens in cold blood on 9/11, you should expect some considerable scrutiny and criticism of these claims.

So far, based on what I saw of your criticism of NIST, you managed only to get NIST to clarify the acceleration intervals of the 5.4 seconds between the fall of the WTC 7 parapet wall and when it disappeared out of view.

You didn't actually use the same video that NIST did, which is partly why your analysis was incorrect, as I showed on my videos addressing this point.

Your bad, not NIST's.

But, in any case, insofar as you succeeded in getting this clarification, it is a moot point: it does not 'prove', in any scientific way, controlled demolition.

Because IMHO of your poor judgment, you make erroneous claims which are not difficult to invalidate. This would not be so offensive if you weren't trying to implicate so many undeserving people with your poor analysis, and absolve the actual terrorists who killed all those people.

For that you deserve only scorn and the most harsh criticism. Your obsession with this conspiracy fantasy is deplorable. Nobody in their right mind should support it.

Run away back to your truther sites where you belong, David. Who cares?

 

[alienentity]

I wish to note that David Chandler has yet to answer my previous question, which is whether he consulted with notable demolition experts before jumping to his conclusions about the WTC tower collapses.

I take it the reason for his declination is that he didn't do any such due diligence in his research.

No surprises here. I think his results speak for themselves.

 

[bill smith]

You have no evidence for controlled demolition. You have a delusion based on no evidence. Is that a delusional opinion, or a failed opinion?

I am known on the Internet by name if you have the capability to research and use logic. I am an engineer, an airline transport pilot, a trained aircraft accident investigator and you are full of junk ideas on 911. Why are your ideas based on failed opinions, hearsay, lies and delusions; not physics? Your failure to present evidence to support your delusion is due to what? Is it extreme political bias or some other problem? It is that failure to present viable evidence that makes your claims pure delusions.

Being an engineer, an airline transport pilot, and a trained aircraft accident investigator are perfect for understanding 911; why does a high school physics teacher fails to grasp reality and fall for bat crazy conspiracy theories?

Stating your name only identifies who has the moronic delusions and will not make them come true. Your videos are political diatribes better suited for protesting wars where opinions and ideals count. Protesting war is much more worthwhile than make up lies about 911 like you do with faulty logic and moronic conclusions.

You can figure out my name by doing some real research and the FAA list my ATP by name. Good luck in your 8th year of failure.

I respect you; my favorite teachers were physics teachers/professors! But your ideas? Your ideas on 911 are delusions. If you could prove different you would have a Pulitzer Prize. Did you apply?


I have seen your long list of overwhelming evidence! It starts like this.
1.
And ends immediately. Call the null set, empty set, nil, zero, zilch!

Like the silent explosives of your fantasy CD conspiracy, your overwhelming evidence does not exist or you would list it.

That sounds a bit like NIST's three-stage freefall:- 'Drop like a stone, Plunge and GONE '

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Actually, while not agreeing at all with Chandlers belief, nor his arguments, I do agree to some extent in is opinion regarding the current tone of debate here. The debate climate here has imho for some time been extremly harsh. Most newposters don't stand a chance and there is no difference made between those who just regurgitate old truther claims, out-right trolls, mark of Woo- threadstarters ("I have no opinion at all, but isn't it mysterious that...") and people who, to my eyes, are sincere and at least try to base their claims on something. Be it wrong.

Everyone is instantly called "idiot" and other invectives, and there is almost not a thread without some ad hominem. While I can understand a certain ummm... battle-fatigue, and weariness, it doesn't serve skeptics to not even try to listen, neither to attack people as opposed to their arguments.

Chandler may be wrong, mislead or what have you - but he does actually perform analysis and he do post under his own name, and that should earn at least some respect.

 

[bill smith]

I wish to note that David Chandler has yet to answer my previous question, which is whether he consulted with notable demolition experts before jumping to his conclusions about the WTC tower collapses.

I take it the reason for his declination is that he didn't do any such due diligence in his research.

No surprises here. I think his results speak for themselves.

In the following recorded phone call Danny Jowenko, the famous Dutch demolitions expert gives a very clear explanataion of why American demolitions people generally do not speak their minds. In fact the vast majority of them say nothing at all which may be significant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Danny Jowenko

 

[moorea34]

I still question the Fig., page, and document reference. I downloaded a fresh copy of the document of that exact title and nothing related to freefall is on that page. The table of figures in the front only goes up to 12-69. If the reference you cite is real, please point me to the correct document.

Now we have the proof that you speak (in your videos or papers) about documents you have never read !

Its a joke !!!

And you don't fint it ???? !!!!

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/
then
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm
NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 2 p 603 fig 12-77 of the document (p265 for this part)


Try again with the links !!

 

[beachnut]

Actually, while not agreeing at all with Chandlers belief, nor his arguments, I do agree to some extent in is opinion regarding the current tone of debate here. The debate climate here has imho for some time been extremly harsh. Most newposters don't stand a chance and there is no difference made between those who just regurgitate old truther claims, out-right trolls, mark of Woo- threadstarters ("I have no opinion at all, but isn't it mysterious that...") and people who, to my eyes, are sincere and at least try to base their claims on something. Be it wrong.

Everyone is instantly called "idiot" and other invectives, and there is almost not a thread without some ad hominem. While I can understand a certain ummm... battle-fatigue, and weariness, it doesn't serve skeptics to not even try to listen, neither to attack people as opposed to their arguments.

Chandler may be wrong, mislead or what have you - but he does actually perform analysis and he do post under his own name, and that should earn at least some respect.

I respect him as a physics teacher! His conclusion on 911 is moronic and that does not earn respect as he plays his physics teacher card. Spreading false information when you should know better is disrespectful to all and I find disturbingly anti-intellectual.

You are right, he is not an idiot; his ideas on 911 are moronic. What will he do when he, if he, figures out he is spreading a lie?

 

[alienentity]

Actually, while not agreeing at all with Chandlers belief, nor his arguments, I do agree to some extent in is opinion regarding the current tone of debate here. The debate climate here has imho for some time been extremly harsh. Most newposters don't stand a chance and there is no difference made between those who just regurgitate old truther claims, out-right trolls, mark of Woo- threadstarters ("I have no opinion at all, but isn't it mysterious that...") and people who, to my eyes, are sincere and at least try to base their claims on something. Be it wrong.

Everyone is instantly called "idiot" and other invectives, and there is almost not a thread without some ad hominem. While I can understand a certain ummm... battle-fatigue, and weariness, it doesn't serve skeptics to not even try to listen, neither to attack people as opposed to their arguments.

Chandler may be wrong, mislead or what have you - but he does actually perform analysis and he do post under his own name, and that should earn at least some respect.

Agreed. I have shown him as much respect as I think he deserves.

However, be warned, your sympathies for Mr. Chandler should be tempered by knowledge of this exchange with Dr. Frank Greening, from April 2009.
This is from 911blogger.com

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20094

'FG: So, to recap: Newton’s Laws apply to the external forces acting between interacting bodies in closed systems. Newton’s 3rd Law does not apply to the internal forces causing an open-structured body to collapse in on itself.

At this point, after several scientific comments, physicist David Chandler replies to FG in such a way as to drive home the point:

DC: ********!!! Total absolute ********!!!!!!!! I can't believe I'm reading this from someone who claims to be a scientist. You get an F in my class.

FG: "Newton's 3rd Law applies to bouncing billiard balls not the interiors of collapsing buildings".

DC: You are so... so... absolutely full of ******!! …I charge $60 (USD) per hour for tutoring. I'll round this lesson off to 1 hour. Please send the check to David Chandler (address redacted).'



Do I need to emphasize how rude Mr. Chandler can be? Methinks he doth protest too much...

It's true, he has an excuse for not showing up here, but if it were not this excuse, it would be another, I suspect. He should stick to teaching physics, which I'm sure he's very experienced at, and cease his incompetent and pompous speculation. Then we could all show him some real respect.

Do not swear in your posts - see Rule 10.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[bill smith]

Agreed. I have shown him as much respect as I think he deserves.

However, be warned, your sympathies for Mr. Chandler should be tempered by knowledge of this exchange with Dr. Frank Greening, from April 2009.
This is from 911blogger.com

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20094

'FG: So, to recap: Newton’s Laws apply to the external forces acting between interacting bodies in closed systems. Newton’s 3rd Law does not apply to the internal forces causing an open-structured body to collapse in on itself.

At this point, after several scientific comments, physicist David Chandler replies to FG in such a way as to drive home the point:

DC: ********!!! Total absolute ********!!!!!!!! I can't believe I'm reading this from someone who claims to be a scientist. You get an F in my class.

FG: "Newton's 3rd Law applies to bouncing billiard balls not the interiors of collapsing buildings".

DC: You are so... so... absolutely full of ******!! …I charge $60 (USD) per hour for tutoring. I'll round this lesson off to 1 hour. Please send the check to David Chandler (address redacted).'



Do I need to emphasize how rude Mr. Chandler can be? Methinks he doth protest too much...

It's true, he has an excuse for not showing up here, but if it were not this excuse, it would be another, I suspect. He should stick to teaching physics, which I'm sure he's very experienced at, and cease his incompetent and pompous speculation. Then we could all show him some real respect.

If I didn't know better Alien I could think that your speciality is character assassination.

 

[lapman]

That's exactly right. I believe that because the evidence is overwhelming that that is what happened.

So let's look at the "evidence:"

• Lack of sound of explosives
• Lack of det chord
• Lack of sound of explosives
• Lack of blasting caps
• Lack of sound of explosives
• Lack of explosive residue
• Lack of sound of explosives
• Lack of rigging
• Lack of sound of explosives

So I guess your "evidence" is lacking.

 

[alienentity]

If I didn't know better Alien I could think that your speciality is character assassination.

People who persist in inventing malicious fantasies about catastrophic events have questionable characters, IMHO. Call me a skeptic.

Chandler has brought this on himself by accusing NIST of fraud and 'drylab-ing' etc....

His main analytical tool is a program called 'Physics Toolkit'. That's it. That's how shallow his analysis is.