Chandler's new video, 8/20/09

davidschandler48 said:
(My previous post wasn't clear who I was responding to, so I'll say it again.)

The videos are out there; the tools are free (I recommend Tracker from Open Source Physics); it's really not that hard to do. [IMHO you should] Do it yourself.
Click to expand...

I did.

From OP Thread http://www.internationalskeptics.co...alskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150934​

... THREE. CD explosives-ejected perimeter columns should have outdistanced the dust cloud behind them, they did not.
“Niels Harrit: “We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.”
Russia Today: “When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean?”
Niels Harrit: “Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!”
http://www.russiatoday.com/Best_Videos/2009-07-09/Did_nano-thermite_take_down_the_WTC.html/print

(1) Since we know from the above visual evidence (in refrerenced thread) that explosives/thermite were not placed inside the columns at the hand access holes or near the spandrel plates, the purported explosives could only have been placed in the ceiling lay-in tile plenum offset from the face of the columns a sufficient distance (and still discoverable) and with the necessarily large enough quantity of explosives to have explosively propelled the columns horizontally hundreds of feet.
“ Girders [sic] from the North Tower of the World Trade Center weighing about four tons each were found in the Winter Garden 600 feet away after the towers collapsed. How fast must they have been thrown to land that far away … The girders [sic] were blown out … by explosive charges that were set in the building ahead of time. … You might try pondering how four ton girders [sic] ended up 600 feet from the base of the World Trade Center.” – David Chandler video below.

Here is the answer - large sections of attached, toppled column assemblies at Winter Garden that David Chandler claims below were exploded in pieces 600 feet distant are seen instead wholly attached and toppled onto the ground reaching the Winter Garden.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/columns.jpg

(2) Proximity and relative height of WTC1 to WTC7 (in picture directly to the left of WTC1) and Winter Garden.(in picture directly below WTC1)
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc1heli.jpg

(3) From this video of WTC1 stop it two seconds after failure (at 33sec). The plumes on the right side are about 60 feet from the building. Stop the video two seconds later (at 35 sec). The plumes are about 120 feet from the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVDaAufKnLc

(4) David Chandler calculates that at this failed floor WTC1 (96th floor), the explosive velocity of the columns propelled 600 feet horizontally onto the Winter Garden would be about 50 mph. At two seconds after failure, this would put the exploded columns at 73 fps x 2 seconds = 146 feet away from the building, outdistancing the dust plumes (60 feet) and should have been visible in the video. They are not. At four seconds after failure, this would put the exploded columns at 73 fps x 4 seconds = 292 feet away from the building, outdistancing the dust plumes (120 feet) and should have been visible in videos. They are not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

(5) Since the expelled columns ahead of the dust plumes are not visible, the columns could not have reached 600 feet by the use of large explosive charges in the ceiling plenum, or elsewhere for that matter, they reached 600 feet by toppling, David Chandler, Tony Szamboti, et al CTs are wrong.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/columns.jpg

<snip> ...

(3) Falling dust clouds, perimeter column sections are seen upright, not crushed, not exploded - then toppling. First video at 36 - 39 seconds, second video at 14 - 17 seconds, lower right offcenter . These videos show a number of critical facts. The top columns/floors block fell without loading/crushing the perimeter columns directly below the initial failed floors. The floors first collapsed past the perimeter columns,the columns remained standing. The columns were not explosively expelled. The columns toppled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEAq6Qw-1zE&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGCFDoMmuA

"If you don't like these conclusions you can reject the theories, but you can't reject the facts." -David Chandler.

Conclusions:
All the visual facts confirm the solely gravity collapse of the Towers.
All the visual facts refute the use of explosives/thermite in the collapse of the Towers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't reason someone out of something he was never reasoned into. - Swift [/quote]
 
Last edited:
The object making the turn could have been a fire extinguisher heated up in the fire, nozzle damaged when ejected and at that point the nozzle failed and it shot down.
the fact is,it is a UFO:
Unidentified Flying Object
until it gets identified.
 
KJC said:
You should already know that explosives required to take a building down are EXTREMELY loud, and do all of their damage in a pinpoint area. To have explosives with enough energy to throw tons of steel in an outward direction, it's going to be even louder. It would deafen everyone in lower manhatten, the shockwave would shatter windows over many blocks and millions of peices of debris would be fired in every direction like bullets injuring people on the ground.
Click to expand...

As an extreme case in point I like this example because it shows a much smaller structure exposed to the direct effects of a massive explosion as the impulse of the shock wave passes through the facility, destroying it; but not sending the entire structure flying through the air like missiles. For some gross perspective this registered a 3.5 on the richer scale up to 600 miles away.

 
Hey guys,

The topic here is Chandler's video.

Please don't let Heiwa derail yet another thread to his nonsense.

Thanks.

Tom
 
tfk said:
It appears that David Chandler has posted a new video, with some new "smoking guns".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_B_Azbg0go&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.911blogger.com%2Fnode%2F20938&feature=player_embedded#t=96


He makes 4 points. I'll use his quotes:
3. "Some of the debris are clearly being accelerated by forces other than gravity. These effects can be caused by late firing explosives, which can produce a white smoke trail. White smoke is a byproduct of a thermite reaction."

3. This one is just plain silly. It is clear that lots of debris was thrown out of the building. Some of it at fairly high speeds. The "free fall speed" is true only for any object dropped or thrown with a perfectly horizontal velocity. But it is absolutely guaranteed that the ejecta had a whole range of vertical components to their velocities. Some up. Some down.

Any object with a downward velocity from collision will outpace the objects in pure free fall. This is clearly what Chandler is seeing, that he is describing as "jetting downward".

It is patently evident that the trail of smoke behind the object is NOT a rocket or jet pushing the object downward. The difference is obvious because the velocity of the smoke.

Because of conservation of momentum, a jet of gas (having much less "m") moves far, far faster than than the object that it is pushing. If this were a jet of gas pushing the object downward, the smoke would be jetting upwards at a far faster speed than the falling object.

In the case of an object covered in dust that is simply falling (or been thrown downward), the dust originally has a velocity equal to to the object to which it is attached. Once the dust peels off the object, it comes quickly to an almost complete stop due to air resistance.

The dust coming off of the objects CLEARLY falls into the second category. Side eddies of wind pick up the dust & move it immediately into curved shapes. You can see out the beginning & ends of individual boluses (boli?) of smoke. If this were fast moving jets of gas, they would be pushing thru side eddies in straight lines.

This is smoke coming off of the thrown objects.

Thermite is just plain dumb.
Click to expand...
Specifically in this context, I think my previous post applies in demonstrating that the impulse burst from any kind of explosion wouldn't have been in contact with the columns long enough to significantly move them. It's the exact same thing that Szamboti and Heiwa (not to mention many others) like to claim; that there was so much force in these "explosives" that they "launched debris 500 feet out and -- in this case -- "down faster than freefall."

But he also claims that the dust coming off the debris is thermite, and that the deviating object that "suddenly redirects" is an instance of this "nano-thermite" detonating. I'm having some trouble writing this without sounding patronizing, but this is just getting surreal. Since when does this have to be as complicated as "thermite explosives" to explain? You get dust in every major collapse where the building breaks apart... if the material falling is light weight non-structural cladding it catches the wind current behind the collapse... And, there's no evidence of damage to other buildings in the immediate area to suggest that explosives went off; no glass breakage from shock waves, and not a single report of blast injury.
 
I think the item that shot out and made the right-angle turn downwards had to be either square or circular. Definately not long and thin in shape. The angle was so radical that it looks to me as if it was a ball of something fiizzing rather than an objectt receiving an impulse from an outside explosion. A ball of nano-thermite maybe ?
 
The ' object' is emitting copious amounts of smoke or gas. To make nano-thermite explosive you have to add an advanced polymer to the mix. One that generates huge amounts of gas very very quickly when the thermite is ignited. It would also need to be contained ( say inside the columns.).

To put the nano-thermite inside the core columns wold be a simple matter- very discreet too as all you would do is slightly charge the columns, insert the nozzle of a spray gun and spray the stuff inside to any thickness you wanted. On every floor if you chose. This would explain very well Harrit's hundred tons of explosive.

The 'ball of thermite with added polymer ' might have been a chunk from a smashed or melted column that was a little late igniting and then took off on it's own.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
The ' object' is emitting copious amounts of smoke or gas. To make nano-thermite explosive you have to add an advanced polymer to the mix. One that generates huge amounts of gas very very quickly when the thermite is ignited. It would also need to be contained ( say inside the columns.).

To put the nano-thermie inside the core columns wold be a simple matter- very discreet too as all you would do is slightly charge the columns, insert the nozzle of a spray gun and spray the stuff inside to any thickness you wanted. On every floor if you chose. This would explain very well Harrit's hundred tons of explosive.
Click to expand...

But you' already postulated the existence of 30,000 tons (or 400,000 cubic ft or 400 tractor-trailer loads) of thermite at WTC. Harrit is a piker by your standards.
 
Several posts moved to more appropriate threads. Please try to keep this one to the topic of the Chandler video.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
David Chandler,

How do you explain that your "rocket / jet emissions" are clearly stationary in the air?

How are they supposed to be giving an impulse to the objects if they are not moving upwards FAST? Why are they clearly stationary with respect to the background buildings? In other words, stationary in the air.

I hope I'm not spoiling anyone else's surprise, but you did note that your "rocket jet" is pointing in the completely wrong direction, didn't you? That is, to decelerate an object that is moving to the right, the jet must be exhausting to the right.

You are aware, as a physics teacher, that a rocket jet that is exhausting upwards will have zero affect on any horizontal velocity, right?

David, is there any chance of you providing your raw WTC7 data? C'mon, David. Sharing raw data is one of the essential components of ALL published reports. Failure to do so raises all kinds of questions that you don't need at this point.

Your program has got to have the ability to export your data as a text file. That's all we need. It'll take you less time to do that than it will to write some explanation why you don't want to do it.

Tom
 
Note to David Chandler:

You may recall the last time you appeared on the forum, you were full of dubious excuses as to why there were no demolition explosives heard just as WTC7 fell, etc..

But you were unable or unwilling to deal with either

a) the paradox of your own making regarding freefall; that is, how the 2.25 second interval of freefall with WTC7 is somehow 'proof' of controlled demolition, and yet the towers fell at approx 64% the speed of freefall - and somehow that is also 'proof' of controlled demolition!!

Which is it? Does freefall count or not?

b) the fact that no explosive detonations occurred just as WTC7 began to fall....and I don't mean just the parapet wall, I mean when the internal columns and floors gave way on the E. side, (column 79 anyone?) as evidenced by the collapse of the E mechanical penthouse....another irrefutable piece of evidence which of course you conveniently avoid...

Your excuse was rather lame, IMHO: that the microphones were too 'off axis' to pick up 120db+ explosions from 2 blocks away (reflected by the glass facades of skyscrapers).

Of course, not being an expert on acoustics, you're just grasping at straws, and making more and more grave errors as you go about your little witch hunt.



c) You never have admitted whether or not you've ever, even once, consulted a demolitions expert who could help verify whether your explosive CD theory has any technical merit, or fits the evidence at all!! I strongly suspect you've never bothered to get this kind of qualified input, probably because you're afraid it might alter your convictions. Perhaps it's just because you're so damn arrogant that you think you already know it all.

Either way, your materials function as superficial and amateurish propaganda - they will satisfy the paranoid faithful in your little cult, but they have little or no scientific merit. You're too gutless to allow comments on your latest garbage, so I've posted it on my channel - wanna find out what the debate is? You'll need to go to my video for that - if you're going to make these outrageous accusations about your own government, firefighters, police, etc...at LEAST have the stones to accept some commentary!!





You are behaving much as lesser truthers do; when confronted with clear refutation of your paranoid fantasies, you simply run away and find refuge in another thicket of truther nonsense. The freefall paradox? You've run away like a little girl again.




You can't have freefall = CD, but also no freefall = CD. Or falling into footprint = CD, but also not falling into footprint = CD
 
Last edited:
That object eems to behave as if it were very light. To change direction from flying hprizontally to flying downwards at such a sharp angle I doubt that it could have weighed say five or ten tons. It seems to behave something like a firework rocket what with the sharp change in direction and the erratic flight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom