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

[HyJinX]

I'ts not an area I usually explore but you must admit that there are HUNDREDS of reports of explosions. I can probably find the videos if you need them. Yet those explosions do not appear for the most part on the sudio tracks of the videos.

Very strange you say ? It must hve been some other noise. But where are the noises that the people MISTOOK for explosions then ? They are not there on tape either despite many hundreds of eyewitness reports. Could there have been something about the audio ? Or could the hundreds of eyewitnesses not have heard anything at all ?

Hundreds of reports of explosions....or what sounded like explosions? Big difference.

 

[bill smith]

Hundreds of reports of explosions....or what sounded like explosions? Big difference.

Are you saying that the camera's would not have recorded the sound of something that only sounded like an explosion ?

 

[tfk]

bill,

Just to cut through the verbiage T let me ask you a plain question that will clarify what I want to clarify.

Has NIST released into the public domain the exact numerical values that they programmed their computer model of the collapse of WTC7with ?

.
You wish to "just ask me a plain question".
Because that's how you roll, eh bill?
.
Just a plain talkin' kinda guy. A straight shooter.
"Just askin' questions. Just lookin' for the truth."

And you'd never be posing this question here as any sort of "grandstanding", right?

Well, let's see if we can use our super-duper psychic powers to see if we can catch just a slight glimmer of what I might think about the question "Has NIST released their computer model to the public".

I know it's a long shot, but maybe someone here has said something about that. Maybe, uh, recently.

Heck, we got lucky. Here's one. And it's from YOU to ME...

1. From yesterday.

So then can I take it that NIST has published the data that they used to program their computer model of the collapse of WRC7 ?

And a response. From ME to YOU...
2. Also from yesterday.

Bill,
And, no, I do not believe that NIST has released their model. I could be wrong.

But wait, there' more!! From YOU to ME...
3. From, lookee here, yesterday...!

If you doubt what I say read this unobtrusive little sentence near the end of [Tom's] spiel:-
'' And, no, I do not believe that NIST has released their model ''

And another one... From ME to YOU...
4. From this morning. Amazing...

I stated clearly, "no, I do not believe that NIST has released their model. I could be wrong."

ALL of these posts have been within the last 12 hours...

But now, you are asking, in all sincerity, with innocent eyes agog, that you'd just like to know, because "dammit, you're just trying to get to the BOTTOM OF THIS...!!"

Has NIST released into the public domain the exact numerical values that they programmed their computer model of the collapse of WTC7with ?

.
Gee, bill. I'm kinda at a loss for words here ...
.

That's not my website. I would NEVER use an appalling shade of yellow like that.

.
Ahhh, that must be my mistake.
Of course, I'll just take your word for that.

Tom

 

[newton3376]

I'ts not an area I usually explore but you must admit that there are HUNDREDS of reports of explosions.

That's because....now follow me here...there likely were many explosions.

But explosions are not the same as explosives...

I can probably find the videos if you need them. Yet those explosions do not appear for the most part on the sudio tracks of the videos.

Yes exactly....if those explosions were from explosives we wouldn't be having this discussion because it would be obvious....not only from the witnesses who heard the sounds but FROM THE AUDIO AS WELL....

Very strange you say ? It must hve been some other noise.

Strange? No...I wouldn't expect all the microphones to very efficiently pick up the sound of something inside the building popping or exploding due to either the fire or collapse....

I also wouldn't expect all the microphones to very efficiently pick up the sound of something falling from the top of the towers and hitting the ground....

But where are the noises that the people MISTOOK for explosions then ? They are not there on tape either despite many hundreds of eyewitness reports. Could there have been something about the audio ? Or could the hundreds of eyewitnesses not have heard anything at all ?

First of all.....how many people have actually heard explosives in real life? Not many...

Have you had any military training? Bombs are really really loud dude....if they are close enough there is absolutely NO DOUBT that what you are hearing is a bomb.

Any sufficiently loud bang or pop can be described as an "explosion"....Iv'e used that term myself to describe capacitors that popped....even though I knew it wasn't a bomb....I stil said "It exploded...like a bomb".

That's just how people use language.

The eyewitnesses did hear things exploding and popping that sounded like explosions....it just wasn't explosives. If it was there wouldn't be a debate.

 

[bill smith]

bill,


.
You wish to "just ask me a plain question".
Because that's how you roll, eh bill?
.
Just a plain talkin' kinda guy. A straight shooter.
"Just askin' questions. Just lookin' for the truth."

And you'd never be posing this question here as any sort of "grandstanding", right?

Well, let's see if we can use our super-duper psychic powers to see if we can catch just a slight glimmer of what I might think about the question "Has NIST released their computer model to the public".

I know it's a long shot, but maybe someone here has said something about that. Maybe, uh, recently.

Heck, we got lucky. Here's one. And it's from YOU to ME...

1. From yesterday.


And a response. From ME to YOU...
2. Also from yesterday.


But wait, there' more!! From YOU to ME...
3. From, lookee here, yesterday...!


And another one... From ME to YOU...
4. From this morning. Amazing...


ALL of these posts have been within the last 12 hours...

But now, you are asking, in all sincerity, with innocent eyes agog, that you'd just like to know, because "dammit, you're just trying to get to the BOTTOM OF THIS...!!"


.
Gee, bill. I'm kinda at a loss for words here ...
.

.
Ahhh, that must be my mistake.
Of course, I'll just take your word for that.

Tom

Well folks....you can draw yor own conclusions I think.

 

[tfk]

I'ts not an area I usually explore but you must admit that there are HUNDREDS of reports of explosions. I can probably find the videos if you need them. Yet those explosions do not appear for the most part on the sudio tracks of the videos.

Very strange you say ? It must hve been some other noise. But where are the noises that the people MISTOOK for explosions then ? They are not there on tape either despite many hundreds of eyewitness reports. Could there have been something about the audio ? Or could the hundreds of eyewitnesses not have heard anything at all ?

Gee, I don't know.

Let's assume that you have one thousand people milling around. And TWO explosions go off. And then you interview 500 people.

How many "reports of explosions" would you expect?
Two?
A dozen?
Perhaps "hundreds"?

Gooolllleeee, this is "gettin' harder than Chinese algebra"!!
(Thank you, Tom Waits...!)

tom

 

[bill smith]

That's because....now follow me here...there likely were many explosions.

But explosions are not the same as explosives...



Yes exactly....if those explosions were from explosives we wouldn't be having this discussion because it would be obvious....not only from the witnesses who heard the sounds but FROM THE AUDIO AS WELL....



Strange? No...I wouldn't expect all the microphones to very efficiently pick up the sound of something inside the building popping or exploding due to either the fire or collapse....

I also wouldn't expect all the microphones to very efficiently pick up the sound of something falling from the top of the towers and hitting the ground....



First of all.....how many people have actually heard explosives in real life? Not many...

Have you had any military training? Bombs are really really loud dude....if they are close enough there is absolutely NO DOUBT that what you are hearing is a bomb.

Any sufficiently loud bang or pop can be described as an "explosion"....Iv'e used that term myself to describe capacitors that popped....even though I knew it wasn't a bomb....I stil said "It exploded...like a bomb".

That's just how people use language.

The eyewitnesses did hear things exploding and popping that sounded like explosions....it just wasn't explosives. If it was there wouldn't be a debate.

So if I'm understanding you right you are saying that there COULD have been explosions but that he cameras may not have picked them up because they were inside the buildings ? I thught the same actually.

We have 118 firefighter's sworn statements saying that they heard explosions. They are widely considered to be well trained to recognise a true explosion.

So putting these two things together it seems clear that there WERE true explosions inside the buidings but that their concussion did not reach the street where the cameras were. That explains a lot. Thanks.

 

[tfk]

So if I'm understanding you right you are saying that there COULD have been explosions but that he cameras may not have picked them up because they were inside the buildings ? I thught the same actually.

We have 118 firefighter's sworn statements saying that they heard explosions. They are widely considered to be well trained to recognise a true explosion.

So putting these two things together it seems clear that there WERE true explosions inside the buidings but that their concussion did not reach the street where the cameras were. That explains a lot. Thanks.

.
Bill,

Do you think that this even remotely resembles "clever"?

Just curious...

tom

PS. Here. Let me try.

"So understanding COULD explosions cameras inside the buildings actually.
118 firefighter's explosions widely considered recognise explosion.
two it seems clear true concussion street cameras were.
That explains a lot. Thanks. "


So, what you are saying is that you now reject all the nonsense that you've been spouting for the last 2+ years. And have agreed that it is impossible that this was an "inside job". And would like to humbly apologize to everyone for wasting their time.

Thanks, bill.

That was very mature of you.

PPS. Geee. This is fun!!

 

[bill smith]

.
Bill,

Do you think that this even remotely resembles "clever"?

Just curious...

tom

Wow- only a dozen words ? Cat got your tongue ? lol

 

[bill smith]

.
Bill,

Do you think that this even remotely resembles "clever"?

Just curious...

tom

PS. Here. Let me try.

"So understanding COULD explosions cameras inside the buildings actually.
118 firefighter's explosions widely considered recognise explosion.
two it seems clear true concussion street cameras were.
That explains a lot. Thanks. "


So, what you are saying is that you now reject all the nonsense that you've been spouting for the last 2+ years. And have agreed that it is impossible that this was an "inside job". And would like to humbly apologize to everyone for wasting their time.

Thanks, bill.

That was very mature of you.

PPS. Geee. This is fun!!

I'm not even going to bother about this one T.... Anyhoot...I can't sit here toying with you all day so cya later alligator.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Bill, I'd like to introduce you to a new concept. It's called "time". It's needed to explain the fact that things don't all happen at once. If we apply this new "time" concept to the reports of explosions, we find out some interesting things.

Firstly, a lot of the explosion reports were placed around the "time" that the airliners hit the towers, suggesting that they were actually reports of the noise of the airliner hitting or the fuel exploding. They can't have been demolition explosions making the towers fall down, because that happened at a different "time".

Secondly, many more of the explosion reports referred to noises after the "time" that the towers started to collapse. Now we have to introduce a new concept, called "causality". It's a little difficult for you to understand, but the important bit is that things can't be caused by other things that happen at a later "time". Therefore, whatever caused these noises also didn't cause the collapse of the towers.

So, if the collapses were caused by explosives, we need to look for explosions that happened at a "time" just slightly before the towers collapsed. That's a bit difficult to figure out from witness reports, because often witnesses aren't too sure of the exact "time" that they heard sounds. However, if we look at videos and listen to the sound tracks, we can tell what "time" the noises on the videos happened. And - guess what - it turns out that none of the noises happened at the right "time" for them to be explosives making the towers fall dow, because we can't hear them on the videos at a "time" a few seconds before the towers began to fall.

When you've understood all that, we can start looking at "thermal expansion", which, like "time", is something nobody had ever heard of before 9/11.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

We have 118 firefighter's sworn statements saying that they heard explosions. They are widely considered to be well trained to recognise a true explosion.

So putting these two things together it seems clear that there WERE true explosions inside the buidings but that their concussion did not reach the street where the cameras were. That explains a lot. Thanks.

So you're claiming that the explosions could only be heard inside the buildings, and the firefighters who reported them were all inside the buildings as they began to collapse? Really, bill? 118 firefighters were inside the buildings as they collapsed and escaped to give accounts of explosions, in which for some mysterious reason they decided to pretend they'd been outside the buildings when they heard them? Or were they, perhaps, outside on the street, the same as the cameras?

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

Bill..
uuummm I can think of 15 to 20 different things which would be in office buildings which explode when on fire.

Can you twoofs eliminate any of those 15 to 20 things?

I mean, when I teach research methods and experimental design, I often tell my students that when you form a hypothesis, you then need to ELIMINATE all possible confounds to their research question.

So for arguments sake lets take the twoof hypothesis (that you are spreading)

Ha (alternate hypothesis)- explosives went off in the towers which lead to the collapse of the buildings
Ho (null hypothesis)- there were NO explosives in the towers.

Now in real science you want to reject the NULL hypothesis. One way to reject that null hypothesis is to show that there were explosives.

Ok. How do you do that?
1. video tape/video to show explosions going off. One of the most recorded events in history. Do you have any which show a series of rapid fire concussive blasts going off right before the towers collapse? No.
2. seismic data. According to the experts, even 5lbs of high explosive would have registered on the seismic data. yet there is nothing there.
3. Physical evidence? Det cord, blasting caps, images of steel that shows explosives used? I mean 36,000 feet of det cord for the vegas demolitions of a 30 story tall building. For a building 1/3 the size of the towers... any found? any in any images? None.
4. eyewitness testimony? Sure. There is lots of it stating that things were exploding. OK. Now we shift to things which explode in the offices.

So we have eyewitness testimony of them hearing explosions. As Gravy has pointed out many times (and you have ignored) the vast majority of which is taken out of context, mistimed or was spoken about "figuratively."

But lets say some of the eyewitness testimony is accurate and valid that they heard "explosions."

ok.

What did they hear exploding?
RDX? TNT? possible.
other conventional explosives? possible.

how about those 15 to 20 things which explode when on fire which would have been in the towers? hairspray? plugged in computers? office supplies? hot water heaters? refridgerators? cologne? industiral cleaning supplies? power transformers? circuit boards? falling elevators? other things falling down the elevator shafts? Oh can't forget burning cars, or the falling bodies.

Can YOU eliminate ANY of those other things which do "explode" in office fires?

what? I can't hear you. No you can't.

If you CANNOT eliminate them, then you cannot say it was "explosives" which caused the "explosions."

So you cannot reject the NULL hypothesis.

You cannot claim that explosives were used on the towers.

Now lets examine the other eyewitness testimony. I love it when twoofs bring up the eyewitnesses. See the pentagon, and shanksville have eyewitnesses too.

so lets look at that
HA (alternative hypothesis)-Something else hit the pentagon
Ho (null hypothesis)- Flight 77 hit the pentagon

So to reject the null we need to prove that flt 77 didn't hit the pentagon.
1. eyewitnesses? Over 130 saw a silver jet hit the pentagon (like your datamined quotes for the eyewitnesses at tht towers)
2. FDR shows it was flt 77
3. ATC shows it was flt 77
4. radar tracks show flt 77s flight path ending at the pentagon
5. wreckage of a jet is consistent with a high speed collision
6. DNA of the passengers and some hijacker positively identified

and the list goes on and on and on.
Can you reject the NULL hypothesis? No you can't.

simple science. But thank you for bringing up the eyewitnesses and debunking fully 1/2 of the truth movement. Because eyewitnesses + EVIDENCE= ironclad case.

 

[newton3376]

So if I'm understanding you right you are saying that there COULD have been explosions but that he cameras may not have picked them up because they were inside the buildings ? I thught the same actually.

How in the world do you conclude that this is what I am saying from what I posted?

Notice I also mention things hitting the ground in that post as well....this would refer to debris and victims hitting the ground outside the buildings...so some of the noises would be from outside while others would be from inside.

We have 118 firefighter's sworn statements saying that they heard explosions. They are widely considered to be well trained to recognise a true explosion.

Excellent......then please quote what percentage of these well trained firefighters have said that what they heard were demolition charges or actual bombs. As you have stated....they are well trained to recognise a "true explosion"....so I assume the vast majority of the 118 have testified that there were demolition charges/bombs in the towers?

So putting these two things together it seems clear that there WERE true explosions inside the buidings but that their concussion did not reach the street where the cameras were. That explains a lot. Thanks.

Your logic is simply astounding.....

 

[lapman]

I'ts not an area I usually explore but you must admit that there are HUNDREDS of reports of explosions.

The majority of those reports have "explosion" preceded by "like a."

I can probably find the videos if you need them. Yet those explosions do not appear for the most part on the sudio tracks of the videos.

Studio track? So you are going to claim that the audio tracks were recorded in a studio? Do you even know how a video camera's work?

Very strange you say ? It must hve been some other noise. But where are the noises that the people MISTOOK for explosions then ?

Yes and other things that explode when heated by fire.

They are not there on tape either despite many hundreds of eyewitness reports. Could there have been something about the audio ? Or could the hundreds of eyewitnesses not have heard anything at all ?

I guess you can't comprehend how loud explosives are. In all the reports of explosions, the person is standing very near the source. Usually within a block of the building. If what they heard was a bomb going off, they would at least feel the concussion and generally would be deaf for a while that close to the device. For instance, I live 6 miles from Disneyland as the crow flys. Every night around 9:30 I hear the fireworks go off. I am not in a direct line of sight. There are plenty of buildings between my house and the fireworks, yet I hear them loud and clear. Yet those explosives are not anywhere near as powerful and loud as RDX and HDX. So to claim that what those people heard were explosives is just plain wrong.

 

[triforcharity]

I'ts not an area I usually explore but you must admit that there are HUNDREDS of reports of explosions. I can probably find the videos if you need them. Yet those explosions do not appear for the most part on the sudio tracks of the videos.

Very strange you say ? It must hve been some other noise. But where are the noises that the people MISTOOK for explosions then ? They are not there on tape either despite many hundreds of eyewitness reports. Could there have been something about the audio ? Or could the hundreds of eyewitnesses not have heard anything at all ?

Bill, Bill, Bill,

I have read EVERY PAGE of the firefighters statements. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. I have reaad EVERY AAR (After Action Report) from the crews from 9/11. Have you?? I bet not.

I found 118 of these explosive reports that your little bunch has quoted. All but about 3 are taken COMPLETELY out of context. Hell, one read, " I sounded like an explosion, then I realized it was the building coming down, and I just ran. I ran for my life."

So, when you take things out of context Bill, it is no longer valid for your argument. But, I also noticed that about 63 of them said, "It was like an earthquake" So, by YOUR reasoning, there MUST have been an earthquake.
Even though no seismic equipment picked it up, or anything else.

You fail Bill. There were NO detonations in that building that day. Or any of the buildings that day.

I posted yesterday that a bomb squad had found a bomb in some guys house not 1 mile from my house. I was typing a apost, and heard them detonate the bomb. I was a MILE AWAY!!! And all it was, was a small PIPE BOMB!! Can you imagine what it would have sounded like if it was RDX or some other HE?? I would have had ringing in my ears. So, with that in mind Bill, please stop eating out of the kitty litter box, something is really starting to smell.

 

[johnny karate]

bill smith believes the FDNY was in on the 9/11 conspiracy. I have to wonder why he now lends credence to anything they have to say.

 

[triforcharity]

I'd invite Bill to NYC with me this year, even pay for his trip out of my OWN pocket, just to see him TRY to go to 10 House and tell those guys that 9/11 was their fault. He wouldn't have the guts. I would post that on YouTube in SECONDS.

But, of course, he wouldn't take me up on that offer. He is a coward.

 

[alienentity]

Morning guys,

Still playing with the troll I see. Apart from a few responses yesterday, that's why I have him on ignore - saves me the energy and time.

Today I realized that truthers (that includes Chandler and bill, happily together in the same clan) are, once again, offering two contradictory interpretations from the same types of data, simultaneously - btw, I think this is evidence of controlled demolition of their logic.

Here is the contradiction:

1) Recordings of explosions 'prove' that there was explosive demolition of the buildings (even if the explosions happened long before the collapses) Apparently the directional nature of microphones doesn't affect these recordings at all! (nonsense, of course, since most cartioid mics pick up sound from virtually every direction, just not at the same db level)

2) The reason close video of WTC 7 collapsing doesn't have audio evidence of explosions is.....you guessed it...because the microphones are too directional (ie not sensitive enough) to pick up a 125 db shockwave. Sure thing, truthers.

or...

'Someone' presumably the NWO workers, edited out the sound of the explosions, which, btw were not heard by people onscene like Triforcharity. (perhaps the NWO abducted him in his sleep and reprogrammed his mind?)

Notice that nobody could have added the explosive sounds to a video, only removed them. How convenient that tampering is such a one-way street. Who knew?

So truthers are trying (futilely if the audience isn't bamboozled by the truther cult) to say that explosions just prior to the collapse of WTC 7 are a fact, even though there's no evidence to support it. Talk about a weak argument! It couldn't be weaker.

The mere fact that you have a gentleman such as David Chandler proposing this kind of blatant nonsense is illustrative of the corruption of intellectual honesty these people are suffering from.
Perhaps this strong cognitive dissonance may in fact be one of the sources of their aggression and agitation. I doubt most of the non-truther crowd suffer this affliction. I actually feel a bit sorry for them, because I'm so bloody relieved I don't have to live that way.

To maintain the truther doctrine's validity, they are de facto against all normal interpretation of these events, and all those who hold such interpretations. Not a very nice world to live in, and a very paranoid one at that.

Others have pointed out the same dissonance at play regarding eyewitness and expert accounts. Chandler displayed this very clearly to me yesterday, by dismissing the opinion of original SE Leslie Robertson or leading demolition experts, writing

'Gratuitous appeal to authority. Who knows what factors (threats, bribes, peer pressure, etc.) might enter into a person's motivations.'

Yet truthers use the words of 'experts' constantly, as well as eyewitness testimony, to back their arguments. They would disallow us something they allow themselves, without apparently batting an eyelash. When an eyewitness reports an explosion, it's controlled demolition; when they don't report an explosion, 'someone' must've threatened and silenced them.

Sure thing truthers. In your reverse-world maybe, but not in this one. You can't have it both ways. Just like you can't have freefall = CD, but also no freefall = CD. Or falling into footprint = CD, but also not falling into footprint = CD.That's for you, David Chandler. Go munch on that paradox.

 

[BigAl]

I'ts not an area I usually explore but you must admit that there are HUNDREDS of reports of explosions.

And you've never read any statement in it's entirety.

The reports when read in their entirety show that metaphor, simile and
hyperbole was used by everyone at WTC on 9/11. It was that kind of day.

Here they are.

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​