Video 18 and Chandler
Video 18 has been analyzed and refuted by somebody with the expertise physics.
The only thing in the video you do, is speculating without calculations or simulations and without expertise.
So i really dont understand why you dont listen to him?
Did you watched all the video's of chandler? Lets do that first.
This was the answer of nist on your question.
NIST: "During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above."
They are doing the same like you are, they dont take the free fall serious, and just say it was happen thanks to the buckling. You dont see calculations, you dont see any simulations.
THis is what we call no science.
Let me ask why NIST, in every report of wtc 7 is saying, the three stage analysis is consistent with physical principles. And at the final report, after they admit freefall, they removed the sentence: "consistent with physical principles"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7511810#post7511810
Some weird twists here, maybe mrkinnies and others will understand better with a little history. I decided to use my journalistic skills to investigate Richard Gage's CD theories. I got technical help from a physics chat room, 14 physicists I talked to personally as well as personal contacts with structural engineers, NIST people and other scientists. I also contacted CD advocates and got personal answers to my questions from Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, David Chandler, Tom Sullivan, and several lesser-known locals on the CD side. I got huge help from these jref threads, where you'll find direct help to me from engineers, physicists, general science folks, foundry workers, firefighters and fire safety experts, dust analysts, heavy equipment operators, chemists, you name it. I put together all the information into a coherent and respectful YouTube format with abundant visual examples so laypeople like myself could understand the arguments.
What's surreal is the belief that people on this thread believe me or that I carry some kind of authority. They believe me in part because they helped me formulate these YouTube videos. They corrected me dozens of times when my reportage was inaccurate. They're the experts, not me. Do you think Tri believes me because he thinks I'm an authority? HE'S the authority, not me!!
Mrkinnies, you asked me a question and I tried to answer it. Other people on this thread are much, much more qualified to answer these questions.
As for David Chandler's attack video against me personally (you think "pearls before swine" is a rebuttal??), I most definitely watched very carefully and corrected the mistakes he uncovered. The new video 18 takes every single legitimate error he caught into account. I'm glad he caught them.
I have no respect for Chandler personally however. The 9/11 Truth people by definition have no right to say that I am unqualified to even talk about this. That decision has been made by the many people who agree with the natural collapse theory. If any real scientists came to me and said look, Chris, you just don't get it, you're distorting our arguments and muddying the waters with your ignorance, I would have said OK, I won't put these out because it wouldn't help anyone. Some very harsh critical people have gone over my YouTubes and told me they are very good to excellent.
David Chandler found some mistakes on video 18 take one, which I corrected. He then concludes that no one should take anything I say seriously. All 235 reasons tossed out the window, worthless because Chris is a hopeless incompetent. I took his corrections and fixed my video, but don't talk to me any further about the great David Chandler. He adds nothing to the debate when he trashes me personally.
As for NIST's explanation of the freefall collapse in stage two, I too was unsatisfied with what they said. I kept asking, can buckling columns really bring a collapsing building to 100% freefall? My video takes the question very, very seriously, and deals with it more thoroughly by bringing in the issue of leveraging/torquing. Unlike David Chandler, my "system" is the top of the north perimeter wall which was the only part whose collapse speed was measured, and anything happening outside that "system" can bring leveraging and torquing into the system. My hypothesis is that somewhere inside the building, something holding onto the outer perimeter wall was attached to something else inside the building or even on another side of the building for a couple seconds. Anything collapsing more slowly inside anywhere becomes the pivot to leverage a faster collapse on the north perimeter wall.
