Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Chandler didn't point out anything. NIST already knew of the 2.25 second free-fall.
Chandler talk to Am Soc of Criminology 2009
- Thread starter tfk
- Start date
Chandler didn't point out anything. NIST already knew of the 2.25 second free-fall.
BS flag is up.
NIST had the data. This is a lie. They had the acceleration near g, and Chandler makes up that is a clue for CD. A lie. Chandler has no evidence for his idiotic claim of CD, and the collapse of WTC 7 took over 15 seconds; not close to free-fall. Got physics, no you have a high school physics teacher who believes in paranoid conspiracy theories and the delusion of CD. Prove Chandlers CD delusion is not a failed idea; 9 years of failure - 911 truth, and Chandler puts some fail icing on the top.
Chandlers entire presentation is BS. A skeptic would be raising the BS flag on Chandler. Why has he failed?
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Wow! All this fluff and we don't even get to see you show us where the error analysis is for the data NIST shows in their graph. You are always harping about how everyone should do an error analysis even when it is obvious by inspection, so I am sort of wondering how you could miss pointing out that NIST didn't provide one either.
By the way, Dr. Sunder did explain that in order to have freefall acceleration there would have to be no structural resistance. Did you miss that in the videos? Of course, he said that before NIST admitted the 2.25 second freefall.
Last edited:
Chandler has failed to get CD out of the moronic delusion stage. You have failed with the same. You have written papers using lies to weave a CD delusion based on zero evidence. Why have you and Chandler failed to break this important story?
WTC 7, the smoking gun for 911 truth's delusions.
Last edited:
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,461
All high school physics teachers have a degree. Stop parading your ignorance.
Indeed. Thats before you guys moved the goal posts. Remember? First it was "WTC 7 FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED! 6 SECONDS!", Then NIST said, "No, free fall acceleration for 2+ seconds out of a much longer collapse time", the all of twoofdom was aglow with "SEE!? NIST ADMITTED WTC 7 FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED!". As always,9/11 Truth with the goal posts ever moving and information always deleted. Evangelism at its best.
Last edited:
Yes, I know they do. What the OP was attempting to do was convince the casual reader that Chandler was using high school level physics. In other words, lying.
Chandler is not using physics, he is using BS to make up the moronic conclusion of CD. Simple grade school cause and effect exposes Chandler as a paranoid conspiracy theorist who can't name names, or present evidence to back up his idiotic claims. Get his CD nonsense published in a real journal to prove me wrong; you never will, Chandler never will! 9 years of failure.
>9 years
The fact is, for some reason Chandler makes up lies about 911, saying CD did it. Why is he making up lies?
Last edited:
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,461
What does having a degree have to with any of that? Oh right nothing. You were presenting a strawman.
Point being David Chandler is no authority, nor does anyone including him get a pass at legitimate scrutiny. Something the scholars for twoof have been hiding from for some time.
That aside I love how Chandler has disabled all comments from his videos. seem the so called seekers of truth don;t like open debate. ◊◊◊◊ the even hold debates when no opposition is there so they can mindlessly declare victory while their disciples nod along. SEE?! WE WIN DEBATES ALL THE TIME!
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
And I couldn't have described the truther mindset better myself: He doesn't want to understand arguments before presenting them simply because he's on an internet forum.
If you want to advocate for a position, then yes, you had better understand the basics of it before participating.
Your excuse will never negate the fact that this has been discussed before, and you're treading ground that's been tread numerous times before.
And yes, I would jump you for making unsupported statements. I'm also jumping you for not doing your research ahead of time. Had you done so, you'd realize that Tom's post was not unsupported, that he had indeed shown how David Chandler had been wrong in past links. Then I gave you the links, as well as information on how to find it. You don't like the presentation? Tough. This is not a friendly forum; it's a critical one where we all take our lumps.
You're not a lurker. You're a participant. Use the search function. I'll concede that it's a pain in the butt, but I suffered through it, and everyone else here has suffered through it in our years of participating here. There's no reason for you to be any different.
You're welcome.
You can cut and paste in suce a friedly way while you post lies about One Meridian Plaza and fail to support your delusional CD claims.
You missed the big one.
You weighted the friendly and forgot the ...
You missed critical thinking as you post lies, and science as you post nonsense.
Chandler make up delusions of CD, backs it with nothing. What would vinniem, JHarrow, do?
Last edited:
NIST does not do delusions like Chandler; Chandler wins in the fantasy category. Why has Chandler failed to take action and present evidence?
This is Chandlers entire work; he says free fall for 2.5 seconds, therefore CD. That is it. Silent explosives are not discussed, thermite the insane claim of Jones in not mentioned, because Jones claim of thermite is insanity.
theauthor would support your delusions, but reality does not.
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
In the real world, perhaps, but an understanding of high school physics would have value on the Internet. To name just one example, a high school understanding of power and energy should be adequate to recognize the insanity of Dr Judy Wood's claim that the WTC towers were "dustified" by directed energy weapons.
Although I haven't seen Chandler's "raw data", he has published a summary of his "position vs. time" data in the paper "for a less technical audience" that I cited in my 4 July post on the Chandler-MacQueen-Szamboti fallacy.
This particular high school physics teacher (Chandler) seems to have none of the necessary experience, training, or knowledge, but there may be other teachers of high school physics who have considerably more experience, training, or knowledge than Chandler.
It's a mistake to read too much into a vocation or a degree. Dr Judy Wood earned a PhD in materials science, and was once employed as an assistant professor by a respectable college, but her dustification/DEW claims suggest she has taken leave of her senses. Ultimately, we have to look at the arguments and evaluate evidence.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Ah, Cooperman, you're still hanging around trying to stir up some dead ideas..
How do you feel having been thoroughly duped over that fake 'pop' audio on the video you were crowing about?
If that hasn't shaken some of your convictions, it should have. It was pathetic deception, which you either fell for or were aware of and didn't care about. Either way it made you look very foolish.
Considering this, you are in no position to lecture or hector. Try learning instead of spamming. It'll do you a world of good. Heed the advice of your betters and read up on things before presuming to know what you're talking about.
How do you feel having been thoroughly duped over that fake 'pop' audio on the video you were crowing about?
If that hasn't shaken some of your convictions, it should have. It was pathetic deception, which you either fell for or were aware of and didn't care about. Either way it made you look very foolish.
Considering this, you are in no position to lecture or hector. Try learning instead of spamming. It'll do you a world of good. Heed the advice of your betters and read up on things before presuming to know what you're talking about.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Or... if only you hadn't already had the deliberate lies in Gage's standard presentation pointed out to you in another thread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187480&highlight=Gage
I seem to remember we talked about it rather a lot. You seem very forgetful.
Dave
WD,
Yeah, I don't like my phraseology there either. It comes across as too dismissive of those who have physics (or other tech) backgrounds, and that's not my intention. In fact, it's the exact opposite of my overall feeling & experience on the issue.
In the vast majority of cases, training in one tech field will give a person a great appreciation of the level of sophistication & subtlety & even artistry that is employed by experts in other fields. It will also incline a person to listen carefully to a specialist when they are discussing their specialty.
So, contrary to that snippet, I feel that a physics or math or any science background is enormously useful to distinguish solid arguments from flawed ones. To grasp fundamental theories and their usefulness. And (with experience), their limitations. To see that, many times, real world systems can be far more complicated than simple 1st order models.
For some folks, that caution & appreciation of other fields just never hooks up. Steven Jones is another example. As are, now that I think of it, most of the truther "experts". (I think that there just might be a rant lying below this surface…)
Two brief observations:
1. A rudimentary knowledge of a field tells someone what the theories can do. A sophisticated knowledge tells one what the theories can not do. (i.e., the limitations of the theories, the areas where the assumptions break down, etc.)
Chandler should have a sophisticated enough appreciation of physics to understand that 2nd (& higher) order effects can overwhelm simplistic approaches.
Chandler should absolutely, 100% appreciate the concept of accurate models, significant digits, signal to noise ratio in experimental data, etc.
The fact that he ignores all of this, while making such grievous public accusations, is stunning, inept & irresponsible. If he were not a teacher, his behavior could be professional suicide. (Even Jones & Fetzer found out that the bounds of propriety are not infinitely elastic. Even in academia.)
2. Chandler & Jones' global inability to recognize the limitations of their physics background's transferability to real-world structural engineering is only minimally a technical flaw. To a far greater extent, it is a personality flaw.
The flaw is hubris.
The data that you cited is for the North Tower, of course. I've never seen his position vs. time data for WTC7. I've asked him for it more than once. Each time, he's refused with some snide remark.
Obviously, I don't watch his publications. One of these days, it may well turn out that he publishes his data, and my statement will, at that time, become incorrect. & I'll stop saying that.
For the record, I do NOT believe that Chandler fudged any data.
I would like to see his technique. His use of significant figures, etc. (There doesn't seem to be much attention to error bands.)
I am curious about his final AVERAGE acceleration (9.88 m/sec^2) over that time interval, and why it is significantly higher than my own best estimate (9.2 m/sec^2). I suspect a simple scaling factor error on one (or both) of our parts.
Simply looking at the interval end points of the data, the end result has to be that the average acceleration was near to "g" over that interval, regardless of the instantaneous accelerations at any given moment.
Absolutely agreed.
But I believe that what those other teachers have, that is more important than technical training, is maturity & judgment. The maturity & judgment to listen carefully to real experts. And the maturity & judgment to pass any initial assessments of some sensational disclosure by someone with expertise before going into the public arena & making the sort of accusations that Chandler makes. And most teachers would have the technical competence to follow along with what are relatively simple answers to the issues raised.
When I first contacted Chandler, I discussed the issues in some detail. But I didn't ask him to believe me. I strongly suggested that he take his analyses & results & conclusions to a competent independent structural engineer.
He clearly refused. (At the very least, the "competent" and "independent" part.)
I have enormous respect for the work that high school teachers do. They provide enormous value to society, are way under appreciated (& underpaid, IMO). I get zero enjoyment out of reaming one.
Chandler is NOT typical of teachers, or sensible people of any profession. He refused to listen to counter arguments, he refuses to discuss the matter with anyone who disagrees. His performance here was typical. A few pronouncements, zero discussion & then fingers in his ears. He refused to consult with an expert in private, before going public.
Chandler has made his bed. He crawled in with his own arrogance & ego. Now he'll take his lumps.
If he weren't such a consummate dick, I'd feel sorry for him.
A structural engineering degree is neither necessary nor sufficient to comprehend the details. Or to come to an overall conclusion.
It doesn't hurt, of course. But it ain't a guarantee. The failure modes are different, of course. (That is, SE who get it wrong, versus non-SEs who get it wrong, do so for different reasons.)
Common sense, maturity & judgment are sufficient, IMO, to get it right.
tom
PS. Sorry for the length...
tfk said:
Yeah, I don't like my phraseology there either. It comes across as too dismissive of those who have physics (or other tech) backgrounds, and that's not my intention. In fact, it's the exact opposite of my overall feeling & experience on the issue.
In the vast majority of cases, training in one tech field will give a person a great appreciation of the level of sophistication & subtlety & even artistry that is employed by experts in other fields. It will also incline a person to listen carefully to a specialist when they are discussing their specialty.
So, contrary to that snippet, I feel that a physics or math or any science background is enormously useful to distinguish solid arguments from flawed ones. To grasp fundamental theories and their usefulness. And (with experience), their limitations. To see that, many times, real world systems can be far more complicated than simple 1st order models.
For some folks, that caution & appreciation of other fields just never hooks up. Steven Jones is another example. As are, now that I think of it, most of the truther "experts". (I think that there just might be a rant lying below this surface…)
Two brief observations:
1. A rudimentary knowledge of a field tells someone what the theories can do. A sophisticated knowledge tells one what the theories can not do. (i.e., the limitations of the theories, the areas where the assumptions break down, etc.)
Chandler should have a sophisticated enough appreciation of physics to understand that 2nd (& higher) order effects can overwhelm simplistic approaches.
Chandler should absolutely, 100% appreciate the concept of accurate models, significant digits, signal to noise ratio in experimental data, etc.
The fact that he ignores all of this, while making such grievous public accusations, is stunning, inept & irresponsible. If he were not a teacher, his behavior could be professional suicide. (Even Jones & Fetzer found out that the bounds of propriety are not infinitely elastic. Even in academia.)
2. Chandler & Jones' global inability to recognize the limitations of their physics background's transferability to real-world structural engineering is only minimally a technical flaw. To a far greater extent, it is a personality flaw.
The flaw is hubris.
The data that you cited is for the North Tower, of course. I've never seen his position vs. time data for WTC7. I've asked him for it more than once. Each time, he's refused with some snide remark.
Obviously, I don't watch his publications. One of these days, it may well turn out that he publishes his data, and my statement will, at that time, become incorrect. & I'll stop saying that.
For the record, I do NOT believe that Chandler fudged any data.
I would like to see his technique. His use of significant figures, etc. (There doesn't seem to be much attention to error bands.)
I am curious about his final AVERAGE acceleration (9.88 m/sec^2) over that time interval, and why it is significantly higher than my own best estimate (9.2 m/sec^2). I suspect a simple scaling factor error on one (or both) of our parts.
Simply looking at the interval end points of the data, the end result has to be that the average acceleration was near to "g" over that interval, regardless of the instantaneous accelerations at any given moment.
Absolutely agreed.
But I believe that what those other teachers have, that is more important than technical training, is maturity & judgment. The maturity & judgment to listen carefully to real experts. And the maturity & judgment to pass any initial assessments of some sensational disclosure by someone with expertise before going into the public arena & making the sort of accusations that Chandler makes. And most teachers would have the technical competence to follow along with what are relatively simple answers to the issues raised.
When I first contacted Chandler, I discussed the issues in some detail. But I didn't ask him to believe me. I strongly suggested that he take his analyses & results & conclusions to a competent independent structural engineer.
He clearly refused. (At the very least, the "competent" and "independent" part.)
I have enormous respect for the work that high school teachers do. They provide enormous value to society, are way under appreciated (& underpaid, IMO). I get zero enjoyment out of reaming one.
Chandler is NOT typical of teachers, or sensible people of any profession. He refused to listen to counter arguments, he refuses to discuss the matter with anyone who disagrees. His performance here was typical. A few pronouncements, zero discussion & then fingers in his ears. He refused to consult with an expert in private, before going public.
Chandler has made his bed. He crawled in with his own arrogance & ego. Now he'll take his lumps.
If he weren't such a consummate dick, I'd feel sorry for him.
A structural engineering degree is neither necessary nor sufficient to comprehend the details. Or to come to an overall conclusion.
It doesn't hurt, of course. But it ain't a guarantee. The failure modes are different, of course. (That is, SE who get it wrong, versus non-SEs who get it wrong, do so for different reasons.)
Common sense, maturity & judgment are sufficient, IMO, to get it right.
tom
PS. Sorry for the length...
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Or very much less. I know of a high school physics teacher who says to his students, when teching them radioactive decay rates, "I have to teach you this, but it's actually all untrue, because it's been used to determine an age of the Earth that disagrees with the Bible." There are some extraordinarily poor high school physics teachers in the world, and some extraordinarily good ones. Unless we know which end of the scale Chandler's at, we have to dismiss the appeal to authority.
Still, we can always assess his statements on their merits. And that's not a happy story for truthers.
Dave
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Tony,
You are referring, of course, to an error analysis of this one teensy issue: the acceleration of the north wall, over some small interval, during its fall.
Nope, Tony. Ya got me. NIST did not do an error analysis of this particular data.
Nor did they do a study (or error analysis) of how many beams were bent & by how much. Or how far the debris was thrown. Or how hot it was under the debris pile.
Or a thousand other inconsequential trivia that happened AFTER THE BUILDING BEGAN TO COLLAPSE…!
Because none of that nonsense is germane to their charter: figure out WHY the building collapsed. Not idiotic trivia about the process that occurred AFTER the significant events were done.
This calculation is irrelevant to their conclusions. They added it as a concession to "public comment".
__
But, the central point is that, while irrelevant to NIST's conclusions, the exact analysis INCLUDING the error bands, is absolutely essential to Chandler's (& your) conclusions.
Even tho his (& your) underlying theory is (are) totally flawed.
Thanks for your comment that prompted me to make this clear to some other readers.
___
Further, with regard to the issue of error analyses in general, especially as it pertains to calculations that were relevant to their conclusions …
You must not have read the same NIST report that I did. I remember numerous incidents of the expression "±" followed by some number. I remember them in relation to the speed of the airplanes, the timing of various events, the temperatures predicted & measured, strength of materials, combustible loads, masses of live & dead loads, etc.
Each one of those was the result of an error analysis, even if they didn't put the details in a "for the layman" publication.
Plus, NIST did a more sophisticated form of error analysis (that both you & Mr. Chandler should some day attempt to emulate): they did numerous sensitivity analyses. Preemptive versions of error analyses to let you identify your critical parameters.
Ahhh, the irony, Tony, that you bring up the topic of "error bands" & "error analyses" …
… and then proceed to make a comment that exemplifies precisely the short-sighted, ill-informed position of those who have zero appreciation of the concept of "error bands" or "error analysis".
Think really hard, Tony, on the difference between "at free fall" and "no structural resistance" compared to "near free fall" and "little structural resistance".
Now, where might that difference lie …?
Perhaps … dare I say it … in the "error bands".
tom
PS.
Wow, Tony. So you DO read my posts. Nice to know.
It's also very informative that, despite reading them, you almost NEVER respond to any of the engineering points that I make to you.
Tell me again how it's because you need to know my name first. LoL.
You're a great one for asserting that others address the issues & not the person...
... until it's you that is running from the issues. While hiding behind the skirt of "you won't tell me who the person is."
You are referring, of course, to an error analysis of this one teensy issue: the acceleration of the north wall, over some small interval, during its fall.
Nope, Tony. Ya got me. NIST did not do an error analysis of this particular data.
Nor did they do a study (or error analysis) of how many beams were bent & by how much. Or how far the debris was thrown. Or how hot it was under the debris pile.
Or a thousand other inconsequential trivia that happened AFTER THE BUILDING BEGAN TO COLLAPSE…!
Because none of that nonsense is germane to their charter: figure out WHY the building collapsed. Not idiotic trivia about the process that occurred AFTER the significant events were done.
This calculation is irrelevant to their conclusions. They added it as a concession to "public comment".
__
But, the central point is that, while irrelevant to NIST's conclusions, the exact analysis INCLUDING the error bands, is absolutely essential to Chandler's (& your) conclusions.
Even tho his (& your) underlying theory is (are) totally flawed.
Thanks for your comment that prompted me to make this clear to some other readers.
___
Further, with regard to the issue of error analyses in general, especially as it pertains to calculations that were relevant to their conclusions …
You must not have read the same NIST report that I did. I remember numerous incidents of the expression "±" followed by some number. I remember them in relation to the speed of the airplanes, the timing of various events, the temperatures predicted & measured, strength of materials, combustible loads, masses of live & dead loads, etc.
Each one of those was the result of an error analysis, even if they didn't put the details in a "for the layman" publication.
Plus, NIST did a more sophisticated form of error analysis (that both you & Mr. Chandler should some day attempt to emulate): they did numerous sensitivity analyses. Preemptive versions of error analyses to let you identify your critical parameters.
Ahhh, the irony, Tony, that you bring up the topic of "error bands" & "error analyses" …
… and then proceed to make a comment that exemplifies precisely the short-sighted, ill-informed position of those who have zero appreciation of the concept of "error bands" or "error analysis".
Think really hard, Tony, on the difference between "at free fall" and "no structural resistance" compared to "near free fall" and "little structural resistance".
Now, where might that difference lie …?
Perhaps … dare I say it … in the "error bands".
tom
PS.
Wow, Tony. So you DO read my posts. Nice to know.
It's also very informative that, despite reading them, you almost NEVER respond to any of the engineering points that I make to you.
Tell me again how it's because you need to know my name first. LoL.
You're a great one for asserting that others address the issues & not the person...
... until it's you that is running from the issues. While hiding behind the skirt of "you won't tell me who the person is."
Last edited: