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

[davidschandler48]

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

Tfk was claiming (wrongly as he now admits) that the NIST analysis predated my own. The documents you link to here are the ones published in November.

--David Chandler

 

[lapman]

I must say the people in that video were awfully quiet. Or maybe nobody was in that area. Maybe they had all already gone home,

Nice dodge. Where are the explosions in the other 2 videos?

 

[bill smith]

At the 45-second mark there is a demonstration of a 'quiet' demolition. No real percussive wave as can be seen by the absense of breaking windows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ePuE0tvp4 the third tower 2/2

 

[HyJinX]

At the 45-second mark there is a demonstration of a 'quiet' demolition. No real percussive wave as can be seen by the absence of breaking windows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ePuE0tvp4 the third tower 2/2

HAHAHAHA you call that quiet??? Those detonations were probably heard for miles.

 

[Baylor]

At the 45-second mark there is a demonstration of a 'quiet' demolition. No real percussive wave as can be seen by the absense of breaking windows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ePuE0tvp4 the third tower 2/2

That building was concrete not steel. The explosives were dynamite not RDX. As Hyjinx said, it was clearly visible and audible, even inside another building.

 

[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?

Bump for David Chandler.

 

[lapman]

At the 45-second mark there is a demonstration of a 'quiet' demolition. No real percussive wave as can be seen by the absense of breaking windows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ePuE0tvp4 the third tower 2/2

HAHAH. That's what it sounds like behind heavy plate glass. Gee, you can still hear it.

 

[davidschandler48]

Somebody disagreed with me so I will run and hide!!

No, I've found the zap button. You apparently have nothing to contribute to the conversation, so you're out of my life. Bye.

 

[boloboffin]

Apparently Chandler has "zapped" both me and triforcharity, since he's not responding to either of us. I don't care if you requote me, folks, but triforcharity's questions really do deserve an answer.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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..

I don't think that's the point he was driving in... Everything has a carrying capacity and can only offer a certain amount of resistance until the material reaches it's breaking point. If a material doesn't have the capacity to withstand an applied force then it's rather useless at bringing a mass to a complete stop, especially with gravity as a dominant force

 

[newton3376]

Mr. Chandler,

I'm sorry for the length.
I'm not sorry for the tone. If I hit "irritatingly condescending", then I hit my mark.

*SNIP*

I left the rest out due to length...

I am coming in late to the game here but I just read this post....wow.

Excellent work Tom. That was a great post on how real life engineers work.

I too have seen young (although smart) engineers both in age and experience try to "school" the older more experienced (and also very smart) engineers on some project....

BIG MISTAKE! The approach the wise young engineers take is to learn and soak up as much as possible from the more experienced guys...especially those who are regarded as subject matter experts. If you are lucky you might get one who really enjoys teaching and will act as a mentor to guide your development as an engineer.

The experts in these fields have spoken already in their published papers....and now you have a few very very knowledgeable (they might even be regarded as experts...but we don't know their real names) people here on this forum trying to explain things and teach you.

For the love of Zeus just shut up and learn!!! Ask questions and then LISTEN....stop all of this arrogance and pride because you "just know" it was an inside job...

You are out of your field of expertise and in someone elses field....stop the armchair quarterback nonesense and just listen for a change.

 

[davidschandler48]

You are downloading the Draft version which did not have the update. Get the Final version.

Got it. You said you trashed your draft version. It is still available. I just Googled it by name.

You discovered an elaboration on one small detail out of the enormous effort in figuring out why WTC7 collapsed. Congratulations. Seriously, you found this & deserve credit for it.

Claiming 40% slower than freefall is not a quibble or a slip-up. It's a coverup.

8. IIRC, you did not do a regression, but picked your endpoints, and let the program draw the slope of the curve. Usually, I'd mark you down for this, but I'm feeling lenient. And your curve doesn't look too bad. C (an A+ analysis on C data gives you a C grade.)

And now I look for your error analysis. And it is not to be found. F.

That's not correct. I picked the domain and the software did a regression. There is also an estimated error alongside the slope readout. I didn't discuss it, but it's there. It easily brackets g. Note that my actual slope gives me slightly greater than g, but given that g falls within the error bounds, I describe it verbally as "indistinguishable" from g.

9. "lack of familiarization with ALL pertinent background subjects"

Now that applies to us all, doesn't it? I have more background than my current employment would lead you to believe, but we don't need to go there right now.

10. "failure to run your conclusions by real experts"

I guess we would differ on who would be real experts, but I did in fact check out my conclusions with experts in physics and engineering.

And the biggest F of all, of course, comes for arriving at the "WRONG ANSWER".

Now that depends on who makes up the answer key, doesn't it? In life you never really know until the bridge falls down, then you know you failed. We're not there yet. Step right up and place your bets.

You'd also get a red flag for "doesn't play well with the other engineers". This flag is completely cancelled if you consistently get the right answer. You aren't starting off well, and I'd have a private chat with you about that.

Hey, I think I'm playing pretty well with those who have something substantive to add to the conversation. It's some of the company you keep around here that bothers me.

As I said, let me know where you find that, and I'll post a correction.

My search was triggered by a post that quoted your assertions on Screw Loose Change. I'd be interested to see what a retraction looks like there! I apparently can't post links on this forum yet.

This IS the way the engineering world operates, David. You can toughen up and play here. Or go back into the sheltered haven of high school. Your choice.

There is a difference between telling it like it is and verbal abuse. Verbal abuse is abuse. I try not to demean a person no matter how big an ******* he is. (Hey!! your text editor screens key words! I guess people have to be a little careful about the insults they hurl around here.) I'll continue to talk to someone, even if they're being difficult, as long as I judge that they have something to contribute to the conversation. Beyond that, Bye.

PS. This IS what passes for "civil" in my circles, David.

Better than average for a JREF'er.

--David Chandler

 

[bill smith]

I don't think that's the point he was driving in... Everything has a carrying capacity and can only offer a certain amount of resistance until the material reaches it's breaking point. If a material doesn't have the capacity to withstand an applied force then it's rather useless at bringing a mass to a complete stop, especially with gravity as a dominant force

Part C nuust be utterly ruined by the meshing of part C and part A. Part A has it's braced giant upstanding core columns anchored in the ground offering their full and constant strain energy against all comers. The falling part C on the other hand, given that the upper and lower core colmns are offset from each other can only offer a sequence of weaker elements such as floor-to-column connections, floor trusses. concrete floors and so on. The constant SE of the upstanding columns will take these ghallenges one at a rime and destroy them over the whole width of the buildng.

Take a floor-to-column connection in part C. It is still attached to a column in part C. It meets the upstanding giant A column. Between the descending piece of core column and the upsatnding column the connection is smoothly stripped of the C column . Then then same happens with the next component/element in line etc etc.

While C may damge A significantly it will be clear that A damages C far more. And C is much smaller than A and can afford the attrition less. A destroys C and collapse is arrested.

 

[tfk]

David

You are committing, all over again, the very same mistake that you made before by the applying physics to an engineering problem.

1. Pure physics doesn't apply. Messy physics (aka, engineering) does.
2. You are thinking that, since you know physics, you can figure a bunch of things out on your own. Get help. In this case, from:
...a. A demolitions expert.
...b. an acoustics expert.

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).

.
From a demolitions expert:
Q: What does it mean when I hear "A loud blast"?
A: A single loud blast means that it is NOT a demolition. Demolition blasts come in rapid fire bunches of 20 - 100. In the case of a building the size of WTC 1, 2 or 7, the number would be much closer to 100 than to 20.
.

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.

.
There is evidence of loud noises. NOT of demolitions volume blasts.
From a demolitions expert:
Q: How loud will a demolitions level blast be?
A: about 130 - 140 dB at 1/2 mile, open air.

Q: How fast does the volume drop off?
A: On open ground, the sound pressure will vary as the inverse of distance. But in closed canyons of urban buildings, the sound pressure will not drop off nearly this fast.

A second effect will make the sound seem even louder: "multipath". The human ear integrates sound over about 1 second. In a live, echoic environment like a the streets of NYC, the sound will be perceived as louder because multiple paths will extend its duration. This is just like thunder.
.

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.

.
Nonsense. This was the single MOST DOCUMENTED engineering catastrophe in history. NIST reviewed approximately 700 (IIRC) video w/ audio recordings.

The percent of individuals that do this sort of video/audio manipulation is probably about 1% of everyone who owns a video camera. I invite you to come up with your own guesstimate from your experience. That leaves a boatload of raw video/audio.

Even so, when you manipulated recordings with voice overs, stripped sound, etc., you record to a second medium (tape or, these days, mostly computers). You have your raw recordings untouched.
.

I first heard the lack of sounds rationale about a month prior to the release of the August WTC7 report.

.
Which simply proves your lack of experience regarding "urban acoustics". To a demolitions expert or an acoustics expert, these issues are immediately obvious.

1. Q: What factors in acoustics is going to absolutely guarantee that any blast that occurs will get heard by at least 1/3rd of every running video cameras within 5 miles of the towers?

...a) The fact that 90% of all cameras are going to be focused on the towers. (Others may be temporarily looking at something else, but the towers are the main attraction.)

...b) The height of the towers. There is nothing but empty air between the towers and all those video cameras. And since the users want to get a good visual image, they will move to where the "sight lines" are uninterrupted. Guess what, David. Sound & light travel very well in straight, uninterrupted lines.

...c) The canyons of the buildings are going to funnel any blast sounds with little loss in sound pressure with distance. Only a blast that occurs on the far side of the building will be unheard.

2. Q: What factor renders the "directional" aspect of microphones moot?

Acoustics expert: A: Echoes. Flat stone, steel & glass surfaces. The sound is going to reverberate down those streets and off of every wall on either side of the street.

3. What is the dead give-away in the damage to the buildings that explosives were not used?

From a demolitions expert: A. The lack of broken windows on the FAR side of surrounding buildings. When you use explosives, the sound pressures are high enough to bounce off buildings across the street and into the back sides of buildings. And to blow out windows. This did not happen. Windows facing the towers blew out from debris laden high winds.

The lack of recorded ripple of about 100 blasts in quick succession is an unequivocal proof that no controlled demo occurred. Even more so with the lack of seismic data from in-place blast recoding equipment from Protec.

David, stop trying to do this all on your own. Form a collaboration of competent technical people from a bunch of different technical fields. You know, like NIST did.

Ask for help. You need it.

Tom

 

[davidschandler48]

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".

I'm in the middle of putting together an article on this topic. Look for it soon on ae911truth dot org. Of course, what stands up to "hard core scrutiny" is a judgment call, but I try to focus on the hard core.

Till then, you're right there with the Westboro Baptist Church.

Tom

Good thing I'm not a creationist!

--David Chandler

 

[davidschandler48]

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?

No one's mentioned that to me. I got into this over a question with Tfk and people seemed to come out of the woodwork wanting to talk. Now I see they've gotten three pages ahead of me on this forum, so I'll have to stop soon.

--David Chandler

 

[tfk]

At the 45-second mark there is a demonstration of a 'quiet' demolition. No real percussive wave as can be seen by the absense of breaking windows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ePuE0tvp4 the third tower 2/2

.

And you'll notice another amazing thing as well...

Not only was this building brought down by "Hush-a-Booms", but a 12 story buildind CRASHED TO THE GROUND ... SILENTLY.

Not a whisper...

Incredible, no??

Billy's been peddling this "silent explosion" for over a year. He's been corrected for over a year now. The fact that his junk is junk just doesn't matter. Peddle it some more.

He just can't comprehend the fact that, even if the blasts were "quiet", the crashing to the ground would be really loud. Unless something is blocking BOTH sounds.

Something like a heavy, plate glass window.

Tom

 

[davidschandler48]

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??

No, No, No, and Yes. Same reason people don't vote or read the paper. I have talked at physics conferences as recently as this year in which people didn't know about WTC7.

--David Chandler

 

[davidschandler48]

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?

No, I don't believe they were in on it. However, I don't believe your assertion.
--David Chandler

 

[bill smith]

.

And you'll notice another amazing thing as well...

Not only was this building brought down by "Hush-a-Booms", but a 12 story buildind CRASHED TO THE GROUND ... SILENTLY.

Not a whisper...

Incredible, no??

Billy's been peddling this "silent explosion" for over a year. He's been corrected for over a year now. The fact that his junk is junk just doesn't matter. Peddle it some more.

He just can't comprehend the fact that, even if the blasts were "quiet", the crashing to the ground would be really loud. Unless something in blocking BOTH sounds.

Something like a heavy, plate glass window.

Tom

I was just playing a little game. You know the one where you say something and then you watch what the responses are ? It can tell you a lot. I had something similar recently with a video of WTC2 collapsing with an intact core apparently remaining.