• 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"

alienentity said:
...this exchange with Dr. Frank Greening, from April 2009.
This is from 911blogger.com

(**web link not allowed**...haven't I posted 15 times yet?)

DC: Bullsh*t!!! Total absolute bullsh*t!!!!!!!! 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 ◊◊◊◊!!!
Click to expand...
I'm not advocating a sterile, milquetoast environment. However, may I point out that the little interchange recorded here comes after several weeks of interchanges of email between Greening (a PhD chemist) and a bunch of engineers and PhD chemists and physicists (+myself) in which Greening cannot be persuaded that Newton's Third Law is in fact universal, within the realm of classical mechanics (excluding relativity, in which case conservation of momentum plays the equivalent role). I fully and rationally responded to all of his objections and yet he persisted in a fallacy that is addressed in the first semester of high school physics. If you come on telling me Newton's laws don't apply to the buildings on 9/11 I'll tell you you're full of ◊◊◊◊ too. If you can't tell the difference between that and gratuitous character assassination, something's wrong.

--David Chandler
(That's who I really am. Who are you???)
 
bill smith said:
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
Click to expand...
That's a lie. All you hear are people screaming after the collapse had started. You don't hear any explosions and nor do you hear anybody say "WTF was that" or any type of statement before the collapse that would indicate that something unusual, besides the fire, was going on.
 
Mr. Chandler,

Matt here. NYC firefighter, first resopnder to the 9/11 attacks. Lost 343 friends that day.

Aahem..... I posted some questions to you that you have failed to respond to. I believe they are quite simple to explain really.

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.
 
davidschandler48 said:
If you come on telling me Newton's laws don't apply to the buildings on 9/11 I'll tell you you're full of ◊◊◊◊ too.
Click to expand...

Translation: "If you come on telling me something that I've decided to interpret as 'Newton's laws don't apply to the buildings on 9/11' because I don't understand what I'm talking about, I'll tell you you're full of :rule10 too."

Also, Mr. Chandler, please address triforcharity's questions.
 
davidschandler48 said:
I find it bizarre that anyone would think a little video footage inside the building could rule out CD. Think about it.
Click to expand...
Because I'm from Las Vegas and have seen buildings that are set for CD. The New Frontier was the latest. Yes, it does rule it out. Maybe this will raise your consciousness.
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
Click to expand...
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

Why don't you see any of the 36,000+ det cord in WTC 7 on 9/11? Simple. there was none.
 
davidschandler48 said:
I'm not advocating a sterile, milquetoast environment. However, may I point out that the little interchange recorded here comes after several weeks of interchanges of email between Greening (a PhD chemist) and a bunch of engineers and PhD chemists and physicists (+myself) in which Greening cannot be persuaded that Newton's Third Law is in fact universal, within the realm of classical mechanics (excluding relativity, in which case conservation of momentum plays the equivalent role). I fully and rationally responded to all of his objections and yet he persisted in a fallacy that is addressed in the first semester of high school physics. If you come on telling me Newton's laws don't apply to the buildings on 9/11 I'll tell you you're full of ◊◊◊◊ too. If you can't tell the difference between that and gratuitous character assassination, something's wrong.

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

David, I agree. I am being as respectful as I can be, ok? I thank you for your responses. btw, here is a sample of what I received from a particular truther, whom I invited to these forums to present his grand theories. I explained that I didn't have the time or inclination to address ever conspiracy theory.

He called me a liar and a traitor, and I asked him to be civil. Here is his response:

'Dude or Dudette:

I repeat: YOU ARE A ****ING TRAITOR! I DON''T LIKE TRAITORS.
ANYONE WHO HAS LOOKED AT ALL THE EVIDENCE ABOUT 9/11 CAN COME AWAY WITH NO OTHER CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB FROM START TO FINISH.

YOU DENY THE VERY FACTS THAT PROVE IT! LIKE THE ADMITTED - BY NIST NO LESS - FREE-FALL SPEED OF THE COLLAPSES OF ALL THREE BUILDINGS! THIS FACT ALONE PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT IT WAS CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

SO YOU DENY THAT FACT AND LIE YOUR SILLY ASS OFF THINKING YOUR KOOL-AID DRINKING FOLLOWERS AT THE "AMAZING RANDI" MESSAGE BOARD WILL DRINK IT! HA! WHEN WE TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK I WANT TO SEE YOU PUT ON TRIAL FOR AIDING AND ABETTING TREASON, MY FINE FEATHERED FRIEND!

I WANT TO SEE YOU BEHIND BARS SERVING A LIFE STRETCH AT MARION! YOU GOT THAT? I DON'T LIKE MY RELATIVES OR ANY OTHER AMERICANS BEING MURDERED BY YOUR BANKER FRIENDS SO THEY CAN HAVE THEIR WARS AND POLICE STATE. GOT THAT, BUBBA? GO TO HELL!'
Click to expand...

You know what? I haven't even blocked this guy. I just told him I'd publish the exchange online to show what neanderthals so many truthers are....

Still wonder why I don't use my actual name online? I also had a cryptic and threatening message from wearechangela, referring to traitors being lined up.
'wearchangela
Traitors are being lined up. All members of NIST who
put their report together are complicit in treason. They are 9/11 coverup criminals.
Choose your side now''
Click to expand...

(This was in response to my initial WTC7 video examining your claims, and posted a couple of days after James Von Brunn committed murder at a Holocaust museum)

Has anyone threatened you like that? I hope not.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
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
Click to expand...

That audio is not the original or has been digitally altered for broadcast. The cries of people at the very end (a woman screaming, a man shouting, "Oh, my god") come in oddly because they are being faded into the mix.
 
triforcharity said:
Mr. Chandler,

Matt here. NYC firefighter, first resopnder to the 9/11 attacks. Lost 343 friends that day.

Aahem..... I posted some questions to you that you have failed to respond to. I believe they are quite simple to explain really.

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.
Click to expand...
Matt do me favour and watch this ten minute video. All the statements McQueen narrates are a matter of public record and are sworn statements from firefighters on 9/11. There are 12,000 pages of these statemants. Can you reconcile what you are saying with what they are saying ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study
 
bill smith said:
Matt do me favour and watch this ten minute video. All the statements McQueen narrates are a matter of public record and are sworn statements from firefighters on 9/11. There are 12,000 pages of these statemants. Can you reconcile what you are saying with what they are saying ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study
Click to expand...

Unreal. Why don't YOU try reconciling what he's saying with what those firemen are saying?
 
alienentity said:
...Leslie Robertson, ...Do you think you're more qualified than him to comment on the structural failure of these buildings? ...And you've also failed to answer my question as to which demolition experts you've consulted in doing your tower analysis.
Click to expand...
Gratuitous appeal to authority. Who knows what factors (threats, bribes, peer pressure, etc.) might enter into a person's motivations. It doesn't absolve you or me of using our own reason.
alienentity said:
And by using Physics Toolkit? (Shakes head in disbelief)
Click to expand...
That's a measuring instrument with spreadsheet functions and graphing capabilities built in. Would you make fun of me if I used a meter stick and stop watch instead? As a matter of fact, there is an improved tool (free, open source, and cross platform) called Tracker. I'm using it for video analysis these days. I'm doing my numerical analysis and graphing externally.

As far as sparring with you, I don't see what you have to teach me. You're engaging in straw-man arguments and childish grandstanding.

--David Chandler
 
alienentity said:
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: Bullsh*t!!! Total absolute bullsh*t!!!!!!!! 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.
Click to expand...

Don't you just love the hypocrisy of truthers?
 
bill smith said:
Matt do me favour and watch this ten minute video. All the statements McQueen narrates are a matter of public record and are sworn statements from firefighters on 9/11. There are 12,000 pages of these statemants. Can you reconcile what you are saying with what they are saying ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study
Click to expand...

Bill, you've been cherry-picked and lied to. That video can't possibly be the full text. Here it is. I've read much of it and every example when a Twoofer faux-cite has forced me to. None of them describe anything explained by man-made demolition, just simile, metaphor and hyperbole.


Transcripts of NYFD responders at WTC on 911
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l​

Matt might very well be one of those firefighters. He says he was there.
 
davidschandler48 said:
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
Click to expand...
Come on Mr. Chandler. You're a physicist. You know how much pressure 175 dB is. Lack of sound combined with lack of window breakage, it's clear there were no explosives capable of cutting a steel column.

dB.jpg
 
davidschandler48 said:
Gratuitous appeal to authority. Who knows what factors (threats, bribes, peer pressure, etc.) might enter into a person's motivations. It doesn't absolve you or me of using our own reason.

That's a measuring instrument with spreadsheet functions and graphing capabilities built in. Would you make fun of me if I used a meter stick and stop watch instead? As a matter of fact, there is an improved tool (free, open source, and cross platform) called Tracker. I'm using it for video analysis these days. I'm doing my numerical analysis and graphing externally.

As far as sparring with you, I don't see what you have to teach me. You're engaging in straw-man arguments and childish grandstanding.

--David Chandler
Click to expand...

So David Chandler is officially dismissing the suggestion that he consult with the original SE of the WTC towers, or a demolitions expert as 'Gratuitous appeal to authority'

Riiight. Notice that he doesn't even bother to make contact with any of Leslie Robertson's findings, he just invents the spectre of 'threats, bribes, peer pressure' as an excuse. I'm quite sure he isn't consciously aware of this hand waving and invention.

And as far as groaning at your waving PTK to dismiss all other evidence, that seems to have gone over your head, David. PTK is perfectly valid, but it cannot, and does not, waive all the other evidence against CD.
That was the point.

Nor does PTK make you an instant structural engineer or a demolitions expert.

Get it now? Sheesh.
 
Last edited:
davidschandler48 said:
Gratuitous appeal to authority. Who knows what factors (threats, bribes, peer pressure, etc.) might enter into a person's motivations. It doesn't absolve you or me of using our own reason.
Click to expand...
Wow. What an evidence free cop out. Leslie knows the towers quite thoroughly. Using his opinion is extremely valid unlike the TM that thinks that anyone with PhD added on to their name is an authority on everything which would include using you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom