• 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"

bill smith said:
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 corners.
Click to expand...
This says nothing about the localized nature of loads up at the collapse interface. It's been abundantly clear for some time now that you don't understand how loads are transmitted...
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Matt do me favour[sic] 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...

I have watched the video, but I watched [typo corrected it again, just for arguments sake.

BTW, I have been in other highrise fires where I heard loud booms before, and after that. Nothing unusual in my profession opinion. And I have read all 12,000 pages of the testimony, including my own.


Oh, and as I am typing this, the Brevard County bomb squad is detonating some bombs that were found in some lunatics house that tried to kill a cop last night. The scene is about 1 mile from my house, and I just AS I WRITE THIS, heard the boom from a mile away. Don't you think I would have heard a bomb going off in the WTC since I was no less than 100 yards from those towers as they started to collapse??? I would think so. Anyway, back to the movie.

Within the first 20 seconds....

LIKE A BOMB!!! Similie

Aat 1:56 the letter says" that's what I THOUGHT I saw. I believe the rest isn't shown, because it most likely clarifies what he figured it out to be.

4:35 seconds he uses the Naudet borthers' video. They clearly say " Like...as IF they had detonated it" AS IF!!! Do you understand this?? Meanwhile, he was using his had to describe what he percieved as the building collapsed.

At 4:57 seconds he plays one of the most INCREDIBLE shots of one of the towers collapsing. Now, before that, there are NO explosions heard, even though you can hear people in the background screaming. Why didn't this pick it up?? Because it wasn't there.

At 6:35, he brings up another firefighter's testimony, that uses a comparison. "at first, I thought it was-do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop?? That is exactly what-because I thought it was that. "

Notice how he doesn't quote the rest of that firefighters statement?? Ah, yes, wonder why???

7:28 " I thought I saw low-level flashes." Again, I THOUGHT!!!

Again, notice he doesn't tell us the rest of his statement?? Gee, wonder why???????

9:06 LIKE AN EARTHQUAKE. So, there MUST have been an earthquake on the same day?? Using the TM's logic, of course there was. Because someone used a comparison. Now, this last one is preticularly handy. What other word is there to describe a GIANT burst of air, followed by LOTS of debris, that was strong enough to knock you off you feet??

I really cannot think of a word. buster doesn't quite fit.

Get my point sir?? I, nor anyone else that I spoke to, herd DETONATIONS that day. Sorry for you.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
This says nothing about the localized nature of loads up at the collapse interface. It's been abundantly clear for some time now that you don't understand how loads are transmitted...
Click to expand...

Smith's Law
''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which body is rendered non-viable by mutual erosion first.''
 
bill smith said:
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
Click to expand...


Yep, but you could still hear the booms. Yes, muffled, but not silent. Plus, you can see the flashes going off. Notice thousands of people DIDN'T see this?? Come on now. Seriously?? This is your evidence???
 
triforcharity said:
I have watched the video, but I wated it again, just for arguments sake.

BTW, I have been in other highrise fires where I heard loud booms before, and after that. Nothing unusual in my profession opinion. And I have read all 12,000 pages of the testimony, including my own.


Oh, and as I am typing this, the Brevard County bomb squad is detonating some bombs that were found in some lunatics house that tried to kill a cop last night. The scene is about 1 mile from my house, and I just AS I WRITE THIS, heard the boom from a mile away. Don't you think I would have heard a bomb going off in the WTC since I was no less than 100 yards from those towers as they started to collapse??? I would think so. Anyway, back to the movie.

Within the first 20 seconds....

LIKE A BOMB!!! Similie

Aat 1:56 the letter says" that's what I THOUGHT I saw. I believe the rest isn't shown, because it most likely clarifies what he figured it out to be.

4:35 seconds he uses the Naudet borthers' video. They clearly say " Like...as IF they had detonated it" AS IF!!! Do you understand this?? Meanwhile, he was using his had to describe what he percieved as the building collapsed.

At 4:57 seconds he plays one of the most INCREDIBLE shots of one of the towers collapsing. Now, before that, there are NO explosions heard, even though you can hear people in the background screaming. Why didn't this pick it up?? Because it wasn't there.

At 6:35, he brings up another firefighter's testimony, that uses a comparison. "at first, I thought it was-do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop?? That is exactly what-because I thought it was that. "

Notice how he doesn't quote the rest of that firefighters statement?? Ah, yes, wonder why???

7:28 " I thought I saw low-level flashes." Again, I THOUGHT!!!

Again, notice he doesn't tell us the rest of his statement?? Gee, wonder why???????

9:06 LIKE AN EARTHQUAKE. So, there MUST have been an earthquake on the same day?? Using the TM's logic, of course there was. Because someone used a comparison. Now, this last one is preticularly handy. What other word is there to describe a GIANT burst of air, followed by LOTS of debris, that was strong enough to knock you off you feet??

I really cannot think of a word. buster doesn't quite fit.

Get my point sir?? I, nor anyone else that I spoke to, herd DETONATIONS that day. Sorry for you.
Click to expand...

Thanks for watching the video Matt. We should all remember that these guys would never have once considered that there could have been bombs in the buildngs. After all they had just seen the planes crashing into them. So when they said 'like a bomb' or some such it's not that surprising- they clearly wouldn't have said 'it WAS a bomb' even if they had at first thought it.
 
bill smith said:
Smith's Law
Click to expand...
Is not a scientific nor engineering term

bill smith said:
''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely.
Click to expand...
Describing only the condition of the towers prior to collapse initiation, when the structure was subjected primarily to its design loads.

bill smith said:
After that it depends which body is rendered non-viable by mutual erosion first.''
Click to expand...
So you're contending that mass disappears? O_o
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
We should all remember that these guys would never have once considered that there could have been bombs in the buildngs. After all they had just seen the planes crashing into them. So when they said 'like a bomb' or some such it's not that surprising- they clearly wouldn't have said 'it WAS a bomb' even if they had at first thought it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not like anyone ever bombed the World Trade Centers before.

bill, people were primed to think bombs may have been in the building. And until people could get in and examine the evidence and run the numbers, there was every reason to suspect bombs in the building. Why not? Who had evidence that there weren't at the time?
 
Once again, I've done a very careful analysis of the start of the parapet wall collapse, to see whether Mr. Chandler's or NIST's assertions are correct. I released this video in March 2009.

It shows, very clearly IMHO, that the parapet wall begins to move downward where NIST measured it, near the centre of the building, almost simultaneously with the start of the collapse of the W Penthouse above.

I zoomed in, ran the video in realtime and slow motion so you can see the whole building 'breath' over 30 frames, or 1 second.

Mr. Chandler dismisses this motion, and in any case isn't measuring that point - he's measured the NW corner exclusively. That's fine, except that the wall doesn't move uniformly E to W, but 'sags' noticeably, causing the famous 'kink'.

Nowhere in Mr. Chandler's analysis have I seen an inclusion of this artifact. Nor has Mr. Chandler apparently measured the difference in time between the 'sag' and the time that the NW corner moves.

I have. I haven't released the video yet, but there is an interval of approx 1 second between these events.

Again, this is not, from a physics POV, 'simultaneous' motion E to W. I think Mr. Chandler uses the term 'instantaneous', but that is factually incorrect. You can see that even on my video if you care to.

In any case, there is no 'fiction' presented by NIST when they state the 5.4 second interval, David. It is abundantly clear on the video I use, esp. when magnified for more detail.

You're wrong about it, and that's the way it is. I just wish you hadn't rushed into this truther fantasy and let it overcome your better judgment. I can't help you with that, it's something you have to correct on your own, and sooner rather than later, IMHO.

 
boloboffin said:
Yeah, it's not like anyone ever bombed the World Trade Centers before.

bill, people were primed to think bombs may have been in the building. And until people could get in and examine the evidence and run the numbers, there was every reason to suspect bombs in the building. Why not? Who had evidence that there weren't at the time?
Click to expand...

It can't be proven one way or the other but I still think I'm probably right about this.
 
davidschandler48 said:
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
Click to expand...


Ok, so you cannot refute that I did not hear one detonation. Ok, so what is this CD device that is SILENT?? Are you going with super-silent-invisible-nano-therm*te??? Aka Hush-A-Boom???

If WTC 7 was a CD as you claim, why would there be a bulge in the side of the building?? Maybe because its structural integrity was in jeopardy?? Maybe because of thermal expansion?? How many other CD's do you know of that cause bulges to appear in the sides of buildings many hours before the fall?? I can't think of any.

The reason they spray fire-retardant foam on exposed steel structures is to give firefighters more time to put the fire out safely. But, it only gives 1-2 hours at best. After that, it becomes useless, and doesn't prevent the steel from being weakened by fire, which WILL lead to an eventual failure of that beams/columns integrity. Why, if you are a phyisist, am I (A firefighter) explaining this to you??

In my opinion, and I think that the other engineers on this forum will concur, that something of this magnitude of failure (Not quite as fail as Bill's arguments" they are going to look at it. I would be willing to bet my and my wife's entire pensions up against yours that no short of 100,000 engineers WORLDWIDE have looked at this. If there was a problem, don't you think that the majority of them would be screaming for anyone and everyone to pay attention?? Engineers (IMHO) like to analize things. Right??

So, with this in mind, I think that the CD thing is pretty weak at best.

I would equate it to betting on the Titanic.

Only difference between the CD theory and the Titanic, the Titanic had a band.
 
Bye for now

That's all for now. I don't have this kind of time very often. A rapid fire avalanche of arguments is not the ideal environment for rational thought. It's been mixed, which is better than I expected on this forum.
--David Chandler
 
davidschandler48 said:
No, I don't believe they were in on it. However, I don't believe your assertion.
--David Chandler
Click to expand...


What don't you believe? Nobody in FDNY takes seriously this crapola about explosives in the buildings. You can't produce a single demolition expert who thinks the collapses of the towers resemble CDs. Why are you so unwilling to subject your cherished myths to expert scrutiny? You know absolutely nothing about demolition. Why are the demolition professionals wrong?
 
bill smith said:
Smith's Law
''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which body is rendered non-viable by mutual erosion first.''
Click to expand...


There is no such animal as Smith's Law. Toss this mindless gibberish in the circular file.
 
davidschandler48 said:
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???)
Click to expand...

Well you lost me at "overwhelming evidence" but to be entertained for a moment.

Please, present for me the overwhelming evidence of this.

Here is what you DO NOT HAVE.

1. Witnesses to EXPLOSIVES (please not not explosions...don't go down that stupid road).
2. Physical evidence of EXPLOSIVES (molten steel - please. Thermite, please, we have seen it all, and it does not stand up).
3. Any significant or sensible counter to the conclusions of the NIST investigators, all of whom (A) are more qualified than you, and (B) had access to all of the physical (videos, photos, steel where possible, etc...) evidence, unlike you.

So welcome to the forum. Be nice to see you defend your ridiculous free fall argument against someone here with the knowledge to counter it. There are people here like it. Not that I expect much from you.

You will get civility from me, and nothing more. You have joined the ranks of the snake oil salesmen like Griffin and Jones, and therefore you deserve nothing more from me than that.

TAM
 
triforcharity said:
Ok, so you cannot refute that I did not hear one detonation. Ok, so what is this CD device that is SILENT?? Are you going with super-silent-invisible-nano-therm*te??? Aka Hush-A-Boom???

If WTC 7 was a CD as you claim, why would there be a bulge in the side of the building?? Maybe because its structural integrity was in jeopardy?? Maybe because of thermal expansion?? How many other CD's do you know of that cause bulges to appear in the sides of buildings many hours before the fall?? I can't think of any.

The reason they spray fire-retardant foam on exposed steel structures is to give firefighters more time to put the fire out safely. But, it only gives 1-2 hours at best. After that, it becomes useless, and doesn't prevent the steel from being weakened by fire, which WILL lead to an eventual failure of that beams/columns integrity. Why, if you are a phyisist, am I (A firefighter) explaining this to you??

In my opinion, and I think that the other engineers on this forum will concur, that something of this magnitude of failure (Not quite as fail as Bill's arguments" they are going to look at it. I would be willing to bet my and my wife's entire pensions up against yours that no short of 100,000 engineers WORLDWIDE have looked at this. If there was a problem, don't you think that the majority of them would be screaming for anyone and everyone to pay attention?? Engineers (IMHO) like to analize things. Right??

So, with this in mind, I think that the CD thing is pretty weak at best.

I would equate it to betting on the Titanic.

Only difference between the CD theory and the Titanic, the Titanic had a band.
Click to expand...

I believe David's reasoning cannot include your perspective. It excludes such information as largely irrelevant. This is because David has bought into the truther doctrine that any period of freefall acceleration, even if it is 8 or 9 seconds into a progressive collapse, is all you need to prove controlled demolition. End of story.
I don't think I'm simplifying the POV much if at all.

When it comes to the WTC towers, of course, there is a different, contradictory truther doctrine, which is that even if they didn't fall at the rate of freefall, it still proves controlled demolition.

The doctrine is internally inconsistent, but because it is believed and not questioned by truthers, they are unable to process this correctly.

What you saw on that day is not what counts, even if it is absolutely accurate - their doctrine is the important issue, their obedience to the 9/11 denial cult remarkable.
 
davidschandler48 said:
That's all for now. I don't have this kind of time very often. A rapid fire avalanche of arguments is not the ideal environment for rational thought. It's been mixed, which is better than I expected on this forum.
--David Chandler
Click to expand...

OK see you later. I give you kudos for sticking around today.

Next time you come can you please answer the question about whether you consulted a demolition expert on the WTC towers and the 'squibs'?

thanks
 
davidschandler48 said:
No, I don't believe they were in on it. However, I don't believe your assertion.
--David Chandler
Click to expand...

My assertion is that not a single member of the FDNY present during the collapse of WTC7 has expressed a belief it was caused by a controlled demolition. Are you able to provide evidence that refutes this assertion?
 
Johnny,

Of course he can't, because he would be lying. I do not know of ONE person from FDNY that agrees that WTC 7 came down from CD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom