Chandler's new video, 8/20/09

bill smith said:
If you are lucky people will believe you without looking at the link.
Click to expand...

Ha, who do you think you are fooling? You speculate the existence of thousands of tons of molten steel along with the existence of nano-thermite, but then deny the amount of nano-thermite your molten steel claim requires.

That is akin to the following:

Person A: "I think Usain Bolt could run the 100m in 7 seconds."
Person B: "What?? So you think he could run at an average speed of almost 32mph???"
Person A: "I never said 32mph."

You're a troll, and a bad one at that.
 
bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...
Chandler's latest delusion picked up and posted blindly; why do you post delusional junk made up by people? The objects had no rockets on them. This is moronic madness propagated by people with video with resolution so poor I am ashamed that Chandler is using a video which he knows can't give him any real measurable values without massive work. The frame rate and the resolution is terrible to make conclusions from. Go ahead and praise the video, post the moronic ideas and insane conclusions; it is what you do. You post lies from other people out of ignorance.

Nano-thermite on a beam? The fact is there were no products from thermite or thermite actions found on any of the steel at the WTC. If you are going to speculate then please tell me exactly how much thermite it takes to move the object in the video with the desired effect. You can't because you like Chandler you can't do practical physics. I have to assume now that Chandler may of faked being a physics teacher and never had the proper education. There are many people who fake their resume and get a job doing what they can't. Chandler displays as much expertise at physics as you do by posting this tripe based on his moronic conclusions about 911. Yes Chandler makes up junk ideas to support his moronic conclusion, it is the way the 911 liars work.
 
beachnut, I don't think Mr. Chandler's high-school teaching position is fake. His bio, listed on A&E Truth's Visibility 9-11's website is as follows:

'David has a BS from Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA (IPS major–independent program of studies with emphasis in physics and engineering); MA in education from Claremont Graduate University; MS in mathematics from Cal Poly, Pomona and has taught Physics/Mathematics/Astronomy at K-12 and Jr. college levels. He is also and author and served formerly on the editorial board of The Physics Teacher, an AAPT journal. David is also an active designer and inventor of educational materials emphasizing quantitative visualization.'


It doesn't qualify him for analysis of controlled demolitions, nor video analysis, nor structural engineering, nor the chemistry of thermite or nanothermite.

But for all we know he's a really good physics teacher. That's what he should stick to IMHO.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
beachnut, I don't think Mr. Chandler's high-school teaching position is fake. His bio, listed on A&E Truth's website is as follows:

'David has a BS from Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA (IPS major–independent program of studies with emphasis in physics and engineering); MA in education from Claremont Graduate University; MS in mathematics from Cal Poly, Pomona and has taught Physics/Mathematics/Astronomy at K-12 and Jr. college levels. He is also and author and served formerly on the editorial board of The Physics Teacher, an AAPT journal. David is also an active designer and inventor of educational materials emphasizing quantitative visualization.'


It doesn't qualify him for analysis of controlled demolitions, nor video analysis, nor structural engineering, nor the chemistry of thermite or nanothermite.

But for all we know he's a really good physics teacher. That's what he should stick to IMHO.
Click to expand...
I guess as we get old if we think it was a controlled demolition then we have to support our delusions anyway we can. Integrity goes down the tubes. I was hoping he was fake all around and not someone who should know better; it hurts to see people break and push an opinion that is pure hogwash. I guess it is hard to apply the same logic used by Chandler to make up his weired conspiracy theory to his background. My wild conjecture failed the same as Chandler.

I was skeptical that I was wrong, thanks for taking the time to show Chandler should know better.
 
beachnut said:
I guess as we get old if we think it was a controlled demolition then we have to support our delusions anyway we can. Integrity goes down the tubes. I was hoping he was fake all around and not someone who should know better; it hurts to see people break and push an opinion that is pure hogwash. I guess it is hard to apply the same logic used by Chandler to make up his weired conspiracy theory to his background. My wild conjecture failed the same as Chandler.

I was skeptical that I was wrong, thanks for taking the time to show Chandler should know better.
Click to expand...

I figured as much but I thought your average truther wouldn't see your point. I happen to agree - were we to apply the same low standards of logic and investigation that he does, we would have to call him a fraud, and accuse him of dry-labing as well. It seems truthers give themselves license to screech hysterically from the rooftops, seeing as they are anointed with 'da twoof'.

(I amend that statement slightly; applying Chandler's own dreadfully inadequate standards, I'd have to conclude he's working for the NWO as a paid shill. After all, he does work for the gubmint, even if it is local gubmint. By making really crappy, stupid videos, he helps discredit and destroy 9/11 'truth'.)
 
Last edited:
Talking of the rocket-like characteristics of the 'object' I was reminded of the 'Congreve Rocket' from the early eighteen hundreds. It was a solid fuel rocket and had a reputation for being wildly erratic in the early versions.

'the Congreve rockets had drawbacks. The most important was a well-deserved reputation for erratic flight, which sometimes made them wildly inaccurate. Part of the accuracy problem was the rocket’s center of gravity, which shifted steadily forward as the fuel burned away. Part of it was the shape of the rocket body and the position of the exhaust nozzles, which were seldom perfectly symmetrical. The largest part of the problem, however, was the stick. Like the Indian rockets on which they were based (and virtually all other rockets that came before them...'
http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/nineteenth-century-military-rockets/

A piece of column packed with nano thermite might behave like a rocket.
 
Last edited:
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."
Click to expand...


It sounds to me like a kind of circular argument.

Truthers claim the tower falls at free-fall speed (that is not true), so everything that falls faster (maybe at the real free-fall speed) than the tower was obviously accelerated by forces other than gravity.
 
alienentity said:
Sprinkle some nanothermite on it and ignite.
Click to expand...

Well the radical change in direction might be explained by a sudden shifting forward of the centre of gravity of the object. It certainly was a very fluent transition from horizontal to downwards.
 
Last edited:
Are all of Chandlers' video such a sad joke?

He takes a sceond or third generation video, watches it a ton of times, makes a short crappy video about it, and it never crosses his mind that he ought to compare it other videos of the exact same event?

Absolutely worthless.
 
Carlos said:
It sounds to me like a kind of circular argument.

Truthers claim the tower falls at free-fall speed (that is not true), so everything that falls faster (maybe at the real free-fall speed) than the tower was obviously accelerated by forces other than gravity.
Click to expand...

Very good. The truther house of cards is built on a quicksand of unreality, every time they add something, it just sinks a little further.
 
16.5 said:
Are all of Chandlers' video such a sad joke?

He takes a sceond or third generation video, watches it a ton of times, makes a short crappy video about it, and it never crosses his mind that he ought to compare it other videos of the exact same event?

Absolutely worthless.
Click to expand...

I think his work using physics toolkit is his best stuff, but he's always been way out of his depth when he dives into the deep woo.

His work IMHO is going downhill faster than freefall speed - it is accelerated by nanothermite rockets, you see.
 
alienentity said:
I think his work using physics toolkit is his best stuff, but he's always been way out of his depth when he dives into the deep woo.

His work IMHO is going downhill faster than freefall speed - it is accelerated by nanothermite rockets, you see.
Click to expand...

Just think AE....if we did not speculate we would not accumulate.
 
I see three possibilities to explain Chandler's behavior:

1) He knows this stuff is ********, and is deliberately trying to discredit 9/11 truth.

2) He's really dumb.

3) He has turned off his brains to serve the truther cult.

I can't think of any other reason why he'd put something this stupid on the web. No wonder he won't allow comments on it. He'd get a boot up his ass all day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom