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

[BigAl]

Sure diesn't he get aall the help he needs from the 30-odd structural engneers who are members of www.ae911truth,org ? In fact he can choose eperts from almost any relevent technical field from a pool of 700 degreed and licenced technical professionals who are not afraid to speak out.

If an architect/engineer speaks of political or legal matters, he has no particular expertise. Many of the statements on AE911Truth fall into this category.

 

[tfk]

David,

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

.
Clearly you've thought about this.

Could you list your evidence. Only the stuff that will stand up to hard core scrutiny, of course.

And in descending order of "most damning".
.

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?

.
"Entertaining the possibility that they were brought down by explosives" is perfectly fine. Perhaps even necessary.
"Examining the evidence for that possibility" is fine too. Perhaps necessary. To a thinking person, that process would take about 1 day.

Now we get to "believing that they were brought down by explosives".

Holding this belief does not, a priori, invalidate (whatever that really means) a person. Any more than the belief that man walked amongst the dinosaurs 7000 years ago invalidates a creationist.

Their IDEAS are completely invalidated. Not by me, or anyone else. But BY THE HARD EVIDENCE.

Now, suppose I were so wrapped up in mysticism that I believed that silliness. For whatever reason. And further, that I'd discovered some "human footprints" walking side by side with clear dinosaur tracks down in Glen Rose, Texas.

You, being a nice guy, had spent the time showing me that my footprints were crude hoaxes, and that all the evidence FOR my thesis amounted to squat.

You, David, would not likely be bothered by my beliefs or my existence in the slightest. But suppose that I started to assert, loudly, that you and all those biology teachers with whom you work are incompetent. Or worse, intentionally lying about things like genetics, paleontology, etc. You might start to get chafed by my antics.

But suppose a couple dozen of your close friends were killed in some tragedy, and I started saying that they all committed mass suicide, or God smote them down, or that high school physics teachers were known to be so evil that they certainly were responsible. Again, ignoring all the hard evidence to the contrary.

After about 5 years of this nonsense, what started out as annoyance might just bloom into full fledged loathing, don't cha think?
.

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.

.
As soon as you present your first piece of hard evidence that stands up to scrutiny, you'll have my undivided attention. Till then, you're right there with the Westboro Baptist Church.

Tom

 

[FineWine]

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???)

Ryan Mackey and Tony Szamboti have agreed to refrain from debating on this forum until the after the "Hardfire" debate. Shouldn't you follow their example?

 

[tsig]

To amke an analogy of NIST refusing to release the data used to generate the computer model of the collapse of WTC7 from which the final conclusons were drawn.

A big guy comes from over the street and kills your sister. You call in the coroner and instruct him to perform a highly detailed autopsy of her body. But afterwards when you ask him for the detailed explanation of exactly what injuries killed your sister he tells you that that information is confidential.

fail

 

[alienentity]

Sure doesn't he get all the help he needs from the 30-odd structural engneers who are members of www.ae911truth,org ? In fact he can choose experts from almost any relevent technical field from a pool of 700 degreed and licenced technical professionals who are not afraid to speak out.

bill, haven't you noticed that I've been trying (in vain) to get David to cough up some names of demolitions experts he's consulted? Don't you find it just a wee bit suspicious that he hasn't done that, nor has he referenced (to my knowledge) any such person elsewhere?

Please try to make note of this. Slow yourself down if you can and let this info sink in.

To whit: Mr. Chandler is on record claiming that there were explosive 'squibs' shooting out of the towers below the collapse front. He has not provided any substantiation from leading demolitions experts for that claim, so it appears he is simply repeating (naively and incorrectly) the standard truther axiom about squibs.

bill, perhaps you can find a demolition expert who corroborates David's assertions. Please get back to us when you do.

 

[alienentity]

Ryan Mackey and Tony Szamboti have agreed to refrain from debating on this forum until the after the "Hardfire" debate. Shouldn't you follow their example?

What difference does it make? The arguments are the same, wherever they're made.

dont' give David another excuse to avoid debate. Please. Let him defend his views if he wants to.

 

[triforcharity]

So, Mr. Chandler, here is my question to you.

First off, you should keep in mind that I was there that day, and I did NOT hear DETONATIONS. Can you refute that??

Can you explain to me why I saw WTC 7's bulge about Mid-afternoon??

Care to explain why they spray fire retardant on exposed steel, even here in Florida if fire doesn't hurt steel??

Can you explain why thousands of engineers don't come foreward if the NIST got it completely wrong?? Sure, you have a few, but, as someone else has said, I bet someone could get 30,000 people to sign a petition to ban water.

 

[tsig]

Nothing I've read accounts for how a few perimeter column failures on one side can result in the sudden and catestrophic failure of all the core columns.

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

Never seen a straw collapse?

 

[bill smith]

Creep buckling induced by the heat exposure was a secondary effect of the impact. Any statement suggesting that the collapse was 'sudden' hasn't paid much attention to the fact that the towers continued standing for an hour or more as more and more individual elements failed (and the deteriorating conditions of both towers were very well documented). What happens when there's no longer any margin left to accommodate the failure of additional structural elements?

The fuel burned off completely within a few minutes as we all know that petrol does. That left fire resistant carpets and office furniture widely spread over 4,000 square metre floors. Even if quantities of this material had been in contact with aked steel we know that the entire 500-mile length of steel in the frame was one gigantic contiguous heat sink. Not only that- the arrival of the lane would have blown most of the furniture in the impact zone over against the opposite wall. Office fires only burn at any given location for about 20 minutes.

So you see there is no good reason to believe that a one hour roving office fire could have affected so much massive structural steel so catastrophically.

 

[johnny karate]

David Chandler, not a single member if the FDNY has expressed a belief that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Your compatriot in this thread bill smith thinks the FDNY were in on it. Do you agree with him? If not, how do you account for the fact that several dozen fire and building safety professionals failed to recognize the controlled demolition of a 47-story building happening right in front of them?

 

[FineWine]

What difference does it make? The arguments are the same, wherever they're made.

dont' give David another excuse to avoid debate. Please. Let him defend his views if he wants to.

You touched on the reason he shouldn't be debating here. He is a "truther," so his falsehoods will get mercilessly dissected here. He would have an excuse to duck facing Mackey.

 

[alienentity]

So, Mr. Chandler, here is my question to you.

First off, you should keep in mind that I was there that day, and I did NOT hear DETONATIONS. Can you refute that??

Can you explain to me why I saw WTC 7's bulge about Mid-afternoon??

Care to explain why they spray fire retardant on exposed steel, even here in Florida if fire doesn't hurt steel??

Can you explain why thousands of engineers don't come foreward if the NIST got it completely wrong?? Sure, you have a few, but, as someone else has said, I bet someone could get 30,000 people to sign a petition to ban water.

David apparently suffers from the misconception that Physics Toolkit supersedes all other data and evidence.
There's no reference or inclusion of the 'bulge' in David's metrics - nor any other meaningful structural analysis.

His theory and understanding is way too simplified to include this type of relevant data.

 

[tfk]

'Physics Toolkit' seems to have been enough to have caused the mighty NIST to make serious adjustments in their final draft which obviously tells us that the program is solid enough when the correct data is plugged in.

.
"Physics Toolkit" is a wrench, lying on a bench. It did nothing.

Mr. Chandler used it adequately (not great, but adequate) & produced some interesting, accurate results. He then, unfortunately, ran out of the realm that he knew well (physics) with his results, and into a realm that he knows not at all (structural dynamics).

NIST made NO "serious adjustments" to their final draft as a result of Mr. Chandler's input. They added 2 pages of explanation to what they'd already done, and one bullet point. They added this to 1000 pages of report.

They changed not one single conclusion based on this "new" information.
.

I wonder what data NIST plugged into their computer model ? They don't seem to want to tell us though we are willing to check their data using our own experts and the same software they used. It's only a question of plugging the numbers in and knowing what their assumptions were.

.
Gee, if you'd read the NIST report, you'd know.

What irony that you proudly refuse to sully your uninformed opinions with competent information...
.

Do you think that a publicly funded body like NIST should make this harmless data available to the public who paid for it ? Is it not in the pubkic interest to prove whether NIST's figures are correct or otherwise ? Is it not irresponsible NOT to do this ?

Is this data a secret and why would that be so if it is. Please give an example of something like this being kept secret before ?

.
Perhaps if you'd open your ears, you'd learn that NIST's data and Chandler's data agree completely.

And that NIST's data is in the public domain.

Or have you not bothered to look at page 603 of NIST's NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2....

... what was I thinking ...?

tk

 

[BasqueArch]

Thanks tfk, nice wise post. It mirrors my experience as an architect. (We're about the same age). I have the utmost respect for the structural engineers who taught me in school and who today make my architectural cantilevers work.

No physics professor can produce a set of structural drawings for the construction of any building regardless of how much physics they know. String theory doesn't work here.

For example what Chandler the professor thinks were multiton exterior column assemblies exploded horizontally 300 feet (imagine the amount of explosives and their inconcealable location on all the floors - the shock front is spherical therefore most of the force is ineffectual, the columns surface area small, the explosive force drops rapidly, initially proportional to one over the distance cubed) - structural engineers know were actually the 36 foot high x three column wide segments 1200 feet high toppling over after the floors collapsed, eight per second , and the four small bolts connecting the now unbraced column bases sheared off from the outward overpressure of the pancaking floors pushing over the exterior wall.

Structural engineers understand the slenderness limits of unbraced length. It's like balancing a stick at the end of another stick . This is not explained in any physics textbook. Chandler is wrong and he doesn't know why.


_________________________________________________________________
Why there is one integrated explanation of the 9/11 events and many conflicting disjointed conspiracy hypotheses -
"Again, there are many ways of going wrong, but only one way of going right; so that the one is easy and the other hard—easy to miss the mark and hard to hit it." - Aristotle.

 

[tsig]

I just figured out how to put people on my ignore list. Bye.

Yes it is almost as complicated as your analysis.

 

[BigAl]

The fuel burned off completely within a few minutes as we all know that petrol does. That left fire resistant carpets and office furniture widely spread over 4,000 square metre floors. Even if quantities of this material had been in contact with aked steel we know that the entire 500-mile length of steel in the frame was one gigantic contiguous heat sink. Not only that- the arrival of the lane would have blown most of the furniture in the impact zone over against the opposite wall. Office fires only burn at any given location for about 20 minutes.

So you see there is no good reason to believe that a one hour roving office fire could have affected so much massive structural steel so catastrophically.

One more time:

In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when comparred to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

http://snurl.com/j54ud [books_google_com]​

Recently, Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Bottom of page 188)​

 

[FineWine]

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

Jeff Hill is certifiably insane and Danny Jowenko doesn't know anything about the motivations of American demolition experts. You, of course, ran from my questions about how your idiotic imaginary conspiracy actually operates. I'll save you time and effort: It doesn't operate at all--it's imaginary. Your shadow army of conspirators existing in a twilight world has no power to coerce because it isn't real. For your preposterous fantasy to be true, thousands of people who know what "really" happened would have to be kept in line. There have been zero leaks, a statistical impossibility.

 

[triforcharity]

The fuel burned off completely within a few minutes as we all know that petrol does. That left fire resistant carpets and office furniture widely spread over 4,000 square metre floors. Even if quantities of this material had been in contact with aked steel we know that the entire 500-mile length of steel in the frame was one gigantic contiguous heat sink. Not only that- the arrival of the lane would have blown most of the furniture in the impact zone over against the opposite wall. Office fires only burn at any given location for about 20 minutes.

So you see there is no good reason to believe that a one hour roving office fire could have affected so much massive structural steel so catastrophically.

Its not the fire itself tht can damage steel, its the SUPERHEATED GASSES that were there. Did you forget about that??

Or, how about this. How long would it take for a dozen computer monitors to completely burn out?? Alot longer than 20 minutes. I personally have already proven Heiwa wrong about fire, are you next??

Plastics will burn for hours. Especially LARGE quantities of it.

Secondly, I don't know who told you that carpet is fire resistant, but its wrong. Absolutely wrong. I can tell you from PERSONAL FIRSTHAND accounts, that carpet is in NO WAY flame-resistant. Its made of cotton and a substance like plastic, neither of which are fire-resistant. Sure, some furniture is designed not to catch on fire easily, but I assure you, if you crash a plane into a building, furniture will burn. EVERY TIME.

 

[FineWine]

Delete

 

[lapman]

The fuel burned off completely within a few minutes as we all know that petrol does. That left fire resistant carpets and office furniture widely spread over 4,000 square metre floors. Even if quantities of this material had been in contact with aked steel we know that the entire 500-mile length of steel in the frame was one gigantic contiguous heat sink. Not only that- the arrival of the lane would have blown most of the furniture in the impact zone over against the opposite wall. Office fires only burn at any given location for about 20 minutes.

So you see there is no good reason to believe that a one hour roving office fire could have affected so much massive structural steel so catastrophically.

Fire resistant is not the same as fire proof. You had several acre sized fires going on in the building. Steel, especially when insulated by the fire proofing, does not make a great heat sink. If your fictitious claim were true, then the Sherman's Neckties would have never happened and blacksmiths would have never been in business. Next, do you want to explain the steel bridge collapse in San Fransisco a couple of years go solely do to a gasoline fire?