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

[alienentity]

No sound of explosives is corroborated by this video

It's one thing to find fault with the evidence I have presented. It's another to say I have not produced evidence. It's another to pretend to a psychological diagnosis of someone you have never met (based on no evidence, I might add). I have in fact presented evidence based on physics. Please critique the evidence I have presented or the analysis.


I am fascinated by the lack of sounds argument used by NIST as a rationale to not even look at other evidence of explosives. There is abundant testimony to loud sounds. There is a loud blast sound captured on at least one video (with the fire fighters around a pay phone). There is evidence of loud blasts when people being interviewed in the street, along with the interviewer, flinch and turn toward the buildings even though the sounds are not captured on the highly directional microphones being used in the interviews. A number of clips run with alternate sound tracks. It is common practice to strip the sound and do voice-overs or other manipulation. In short, the sound data is a very spotty, unreliable form of evidence. It certainly doesn't justify refusing to look at physical evidence.

I first heard the lack of sounds rationale about a month prior to the release of the August WTC7 report. (If anyone can document an earlier discussion of it, please bring it to my attention.) The argument seemed to come out of nowhere and came with such vehemence (in response to one of my videos) that it caught my attention. When this turned out to be the lynchpin of the WTC7 report, I suspected a connection.

Bottom line, the sounds argument is very weak.

--David Chandler

David, take a look at this video. I got hold of it last week. The reporter is quite close to bldg 7, her microphone (handheld) is facing towards the building.
It's not plausible that demolition explosives could have gone off and not have been captured from that proximity. I've seen lots of CD's on video, and there's no mistaking the explosions....this didn't happen with WTC 7 - the evidence is quite clear.

Incidentally, I refer to CD explosives, which must immediately precede the collapse. Since bldg 7 was on fire for several hours, there were in fact some explosive noises during that time. That is true. This again is not evidence of any kind of CD ever witnessed. There would be no precedent with which to compare.



And a comparison with a known CD 'Landmark Tower'





Any questions? class dismissed.

 

[triforcharity]

Ok Mr. Chandler,

Care to address my questions?? I was there and didn't hear any detonations. Sorry for you. Neither did thousands of other people. If there was a CD of any of those buildings, it would have been cought by many cameras, from many angles. Why is that not the case?? Could loud noises coming from a giant skyscraper that had a plane crashed into it and is on fire be something OTHER than detonations?? I bet that there are MANY other reasons for that. Care to take a stab at it???

 

[BigAl]

David, take a look at this video. I got hold of it last week. The reporter is quite close to bldg 7, her microphone (handheld) is facing towards the building.
It's not plausible that demolition explosives could have gone off and not have been captured from that proximity. I've seen lots of CD's on video, and there's no mistaking the explosions....this didn't happen with WTC 7 - the evidence is quite clear.

Incidentally, I refer to CD explosives, which must immediately precede the collapse. Since bldg 7 was on fire for several hours, there were in fact some explosive noises during that time. That is true. This again is not evidence of any kind of CD ever witnessed. There would be no precedent with which to compare.

We recently discussed a different news video made even closer to WTC7 that failed to record any noises consistent with man-made demolition.

 

[triforcharity]

So, you learned how to be an epic failure from heiwa??? GREAT........ Good for you!!

 

[lapman]

It's one thing to find fault with the evidence I have presented. It's another to say I have not produced evidence. It's another to pretend to a psychological diagnosis of someone you have never met (based on no evidence, I might add). I have in fact presented evidence based on physics. Please critique the evidence I have presented or the analysis.


I am fascinated by the lack of sounds argument used by NIST as a rationale to not even look at other evidence of explosives. There is abundant testimony to loud sounds. There is a loud blast sound captured on at least one video (with the fire fighters around a pay phone). There is evidence of loud blasts when people being interviewed in the street, along with the interviewer, flinch and turn toward the buildings even though the sounds are not captured on the highly directional microphones being used in the interviews. A number of clips run with alternate sound tracks. It is common practice to strip the sound and do voice-overs or other manipulation. In short, the sound data is a very spotty, unreliable form of evidence. It certainly doesn't justify refusing to look at physical evidence.

I first heard the lack of sounds rationale about a month prior to the release of the August WTC7 report. (If anyone can document an earlier discussion of it, please bring it to my attention.) The argument seemed to come out of nowhere and came with such vehemence (in response to one of my videos) that it caught my attention. When this turned out to be the lynchpin of the WTC7 report, I suspected a connection.

Bottom line, the sounds argument is very weak.

--David Chandler

Here you are completely wrong. The sound argument is extremely valid. Explosives are extremely loud. Every video of a controlled demolition has that distinctive sound and the sequence used by the demolitions company to sever the columns. That video that has an explosion like sound gives no indication of when it was made. Based on the dust, it is sometime after the towers had collapsed and before WTC 7 collapsed. However, there are a plethora of videos of the towers and 7 including one with an interview that was occurring just as the collapse of 7 started. Nobody knew that 7 had collapsed until they saw the dust cloud. You don't hear the sound of explosives nor is there any type of reaction from the reporter, interviewee or anybody in view that would normally occur when hearing an explosion. To put it simply, the sound of explosives would be recorded on 100% of all audio recordings within several blocks and across the river from the towers. The news agencies would have been all over it.

 

[bill smith]

That video has been discussed here in great detail. The location of the phone has been identified and the distance is such that if that noise emanated from GZ, it would have been heard all over lower Manhattan and recorded on the sound track of every video recorder in operation at GZ. No such recordings exist.

That noise was either faked in the computer or made by something very close to the microphone.

Search for "Lucia Davis", the name of the film maker.

There is no audio of an explosion that in timing and loudness is consistent with explosive demolition of any of the towers.

That sequence is in this short video. The Italian director exaggerates of course by repeating the explosion two extra times. A very powerful exploson it was too. To tell you the truth the part I personally found the most interesting part was just after the explosion went off. The fireman who said 'don't worry about it'. I don't even think he looked in the direcrion of the explosion like the others. He acted like he knew it was coming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

PS. not forgetting the lady near the end who said that 'the FDNY said they were going to have to bring the building down'

 

[FineWine]

I have learned lots from Heiwa and lots more from the other engineers on the various threads.

You have learned nothing from Heiwa. He is an incompetent, agenda-driven fraud whose garble of basic physics has made him a laughingstock.

You have learned nothing from the real engineers because you refuse to open your eyes and your mind.

 

[alienentity]

We recently discussed a different news video made even closer to WTC7 that failed to record any noises consistent with man-made demolition.

Got a link to it?

And David, there is a complete absence of explosive shockwaves preceding the collapse of bldg 7. Note that the windows stay intact mostly until the E. PH falls into the building.

This again is really not remotely consistent with controlled demolition. The high velocity blasts would have shattered windows unmistakably. That did not happen.

And so on and so on.

 

[FineWine]

That sequence is in this short video. The Italian director exaggerates of course by repeating the explosion two extra times. A very powerful exploson it was too. To tell you the truth the part I personally found the most interesting part was just after the explosion went off. The fireman who said 'don't worry about it'. I don't even think he looked in the direcrion of the explosion like the others. He acted like he knew it was coming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

PS. not forgetting the lady near the end who said that 'the FDNY said they were going to have to bring the building down'

No, the FDNY did not say that it was going to bring the building down. Stop lying. The FDNY does not bring down buildings.

 

[davidschandler48]

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.

If you recall, I did start out with responses to your video early on, but quit when it became clear you were simply into setting up straw men, then retreating to the Jref forum and bragging about pulling my chain. If you deal with honest interaction and don't waste my time you're more likely to get a response out of me,...if I have time for it.

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.

Somebody clearly did it, and apparently had the power to pull off a major coverup. No group is sacrosanct.

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 mean by inventing the 3-phase thing, not justifying their start time, and not commenting on how freefall is consistent with their model?

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.

Apparently my analysis was not incorrect, or they would simply have ignored it. How is using only two data points and an equation based on uniform acceleration, and the explicit assumption of uniform acceleration over an interval that included a long pause, not fraudulent?

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.

How is it a priori truth that Arab terrorists did it? As far as I can see, given the evidence, we have killed over a million undeserving people using the non-investigation of 9/11 as a pretext.

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

 

[alienentity]

Ok Mr. Chandler,

Care to address my questions?? I was there and didn't hear any detonations. Sorry for you. Neither did thousands of other people. If there was a CD of any of those buildings, it would have been cought by many cameras, from many angles. Why is that not the case?? Could loud noises coming from a giant skyscraper that had a plane crashed into it and is on fire be something OTHER than detonations?? I bet that there are MANY other reasons for that. Care to take a stab at it???

Watch David ignore you. It saddens me but unfortunately I don't think he'll be able to register what your experience was, no matter how valuable or truthful it is.

He could prove me wrong and recant his CD obsession. But I won't count on it.

 

[tfk]

Bill,

So then can I take it that ...

.
I have every confidence in the world that, no matter how simple, how direct, how straight forward may be the reply that I or anyone else offers, you will somehow manage to "take it" and FUBAR it into oblivion.
.

... NIST has published the data that they used to program their computer model of the collapse of WRC7 ?

.
Am I psychic, or what??

Please refer to the post that you wrote, and to which I replied.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4910959

You were talking about Physics Toolkit & Chandler's results.

Curiously enough, I answered you, talking about Physics Toolkit & Chandler's results.

And THAT data is readily available in the NIST WTC7 report. On the pages that I specified. You know, the very same report which you have repeatedly & PROUDLY announced that you refuse to read.

Ahhh, the burning irony...

Mr. Chandler & I have both given clear descriptions of that piece of free software. Which you are now confusing it for a piece of $100,000 FEA software.

Amazing...

Along with the assumptions they used ? So anybody can literally take that data and enter it into je same software that NISTused and presumably come up with the same results ?

.
ALL of the assumption that they used are laid out in exquisite detail. Guess where...

And, no, I do not believe that NIST has released their model. I could be wrong. Think of it as one of those tiny little screwdrivers that they hand out at technical seminars, bill. You'd put your eye out with it...
.

Well I'm sure you wouldn't lie or be misleading now T would you ?

.
I answered your comment directly and truthfully, bill. That's what I try to do.

You follow a different path.

Tom

 

[boloboffin]

There is a loud blast sound captured on at least one video (with the fire fighters around a pay phone).

That was recorded at 10:45 am, right after the North Tower had fallen.

There is evidence of loud blasts when people being interviewed in the street, along with the interviewer, flinch and turn toward the buildings even though the sounds are not captured on the highly directional microphones being used in the interviews.

I think you don't understand how "highly directional microphones" work, even though you're obviously adept at using what the English words look like to construct a straw man argument.

A number of clips run with alternate sound tracks. It is common practice to strip the sound and do voice-overs or other manipulation. In short, the sound data is a very spotty, unreliable form of evidence. It certainly doesn't justify refusing to look at physical evidence.

Cleaned-up soundtracks don't negate the actual audios we have available.

I first heard the lack of sounds rationale about a month prior to the release of the August WTC7 report. (If anyone can document an earlier discussion of it, please bring it to my attention.) The argument seemed to come out of nowhere and came with such vehemence (in response to one of my videos) that it caught my attention. When this turned out to be the lynchpin of the WTC7 report, I suspected a connection.

Your solipsism is astonishing.

Bottom line, the sounds argument is very weak.

If you can produce just one video taken during the day with clearly audible explosives heard in the original audio, then you might have something to put up against the lack of it in all the others, plus the lack of distinctive explosive signatures in the seismographs that would have recorded any of the multiple charges needed to cut those load-bearing columns.

--David Chandler

--Joseph Nobles

 

[boloboffin]

Where ? I saw the interview live.

I demonstrate Jowenko's prior knowledge at the link, bill. Please be so good as to read it before dismissing it.

 

[BigAl]

That sequence is in this short video. The Italian director exaggerates of course by repeating the explosion two extra times. A very powerful exploson it was too. To tell you the truth the part I personally found the most interesting part was just after the explosion went off. The fireman who said 'don't worry about it'. I don't even think he looked in the direcrion of the explosion like the others. He acted like he knew it was coming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

I gave up at 2:50 without hearing any noise. Give me the timing mark of the explosion noise. All the other verbal and graphic diarrhea is irrelevant.

How can only one of the countless video cameras have the recording of a sound that would have been head for a mile?

There is no video recording in existence with the sound consistent in timing and loudness with man-made demolition of any of the WTC towers.

 

[alienentity]

If you recall, I did start out with responses to your video early on, but quit when it became clear you were simply into setting up straw men, then retreating to the Jref forum and bragging about pulling my chain. If you deal with honest interaction and don't waste my time you're more likely to get a response out of me,...if I have time for it.

Somebody clearly did it, and apparently had the power to pull off a major coverup. No group is sacrosanct.


...you mean by inventing the 3-phase thing, not justifying their start time, and not commenting on how freefall is consistent with their model?


Apparently my analysis was not incorrect, or they would simply have ignored it. How is using only two data points and an equation based on uniform acceleration, and the explicit assumption of uniform acceleration over an interval that included a long pause, not fraudulent?


How is it a priori truth that Arab terrorists did it? As far as I can see, given the evidence, we have killed over a million undeserving people using the non-investigation of 9/11 as a pretext.

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

Addressing just the point about your incorrect analysis - here is what I said was incorrect: you said that the 5.4 second interval was fiction.
I checked the videos and showed that it was not.

Part of your error was due to the use of the long-distance video, so you didn't notice the movement of the parapet wall. I pointed this out in detail, and posted a follow-up video using a closer view.

I never claimed your use of PTK was incorrect. I think you were able to clarify the smaller acceleration periods successfully, but then made the error of accusing NIST of fraud. You have no proper grounds to make such an accusation. NIST's initial observation of 5.4 seconds for 18 stories was supported by the evidence. It still is.

btw, If you recall, when you posted comments on my channel, you were mainly annoyed that I didn't think you had the qualifications to do the analysis you were doing. There were a couple of commenters who were abusive to you, and you said something like 'I'm outta here'.

I apologize for their language, but I can't control the behavior of youtubers. I've already explained that I receive a lot of abuse from truthers, which I won't get into further. You can probably see it in the comments, 'cause I usually leave them......


Here is the video.

 

[lapman]

That sequence is in this short video. The Italian director exaggerates of course by repeating the explosion two extra times. A very powerful exploson it was too. To tell you the truth the part I personally found the most interesting part was just after the explosion went off. The fireman who said 'don't worry about it'. I don't even think he looked in the direcrion of the explosion like the others. He acted like he knew it was coming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

I gave up at 2:50 without hearing any noise. Give me the timing mark of the explosion noise. All the other verbal and graphic diarrhea is irrelevant.

How can only one of the countless video cameras have the recording of a sound that would have been head for a mile?

There is no video recording in existence with the sound consistent in timing and loudness with man-made demolition of any of the WTC towers.

This goes along with the "Bombs in the building" fallacy that the TM abused for so long. Thank you Bolo for the timing of it.

 

[triforcharity]

That sequence is in this short video. The Italian director exaggerates of course by repeating the explosion two extra times. A very powerful exploson it was too. To tell you the truth the part I personally found the most interesting part was just after the explosion went off. The fireman who said 'don't worry about it'. I don't even think he looked in the direcrion of the explosion like the others. He acted like he knew it was coming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

PS. not forgetting the lady near the end who said that 'the FDNY said they were going to have to bring the building down'

HOLD THE PHONE SON. Did you SERIOUSLY just tell me that the firefighter in the video is guilty of MURDER?? Or at the very least, ACCOMPLICE to it??

I guarantee you would NEVER go to 10 house and say exactly that. Your accusing US of killing our own BROTHERS. That's pretty low. I didn't think it could GET any lower, but you just blew the bottom out of the low end.

PS. The reason it most likely didn't startle them, is because it was most likely a PERSON crashing into the GROUND at terminal velocity. Do you really want to tell you family that there are people jumping out of a building to their certain deaths?? NO.

Scumbag statement at the VERY LEAST!!

 

[bill smith]

That was recorded at 10:45 am, right after the North Tower had fallen.



I think you don't understand how "highly directional microphones" work, even though you're obviously adept at using what the English words look like to construct a straw man argument.



Cleaned-up soundtracks don't negate the actual audios we have available.



Your solipsism is astonishing.



If you can produce just one video taken during the day with clearly audible explosives heard in the original audio, then you might have something to put up against the lack of it in all the others, plus the lack of distinctive explosive signatures in the seismographs that would have recorded any of the multiple charges needed to cut those load-bearing columns.



--Joseph Nobles

Around the middle of this clip the explosions that are sequentially bringing down one of he Towers can be clearly heard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

 

[BigAl]

Around the middle of this clip the explosions that are sequentially bringing down one of he Towers can be clearly heard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

Give us a second mark, Bill.