• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New video of David Chandler: rockets at the World Trade Center

Not that they weren't before, but twoofers are becoming desperate.

That was pretty funny though :D
 
Edx said:
Whats the facepalm for? You want all manor of things destroying the WTC, why do you have to bring up rockets being launched into it as well?
Click to expand...
Because it's on youtube! Nothing seems too silly for these idiots. Unless someone made a video saying the towers were destroyed by enormous genetically modified cabbages fired from a cannon...
 
Marokkaan said:
Is this the level of jref? damn....
Click to expand...

Yes, although we were perhaps rude. We should have thanked you for posting a video that proves that Chandler and Neils are freaking idiots.

You see this smokey thing? Yeah, that is Dark brand nano-therm*te.

Face Palm.

/aren't you mad at these morons, Mar?
 
Ron Wieck is schooling all the idiots in the comments section right now. And a certain special kind of moron named 911wasajewcrime. The idiocy is overflowing.
 
Marokkaan said:
Is this the level of jref? damn....
Click to expand...

Seriously? You post one of the most ridiculous things I've seen here in months, by that idiot Chandler that you appear to hang on every word he says no questions asked like he was Jesus Christ come back, and you have the NERVE to lecture us about a "level"?



:boggled:
 
Jones also makes the mistake of calling dust trailing from some falling columns thermite smoke.

Both of these dorks disregard the fact that neither of their artifacts produce light.

Only an utter fool compares a dust plume in the full sunlight to a dust plume in partial shade and calls them different substances because of the different light values.
 
Oz1976 said:
Ron Wieck is schooling all the idiots in the comments section right now. And a certain special kind of moron named 911wasajewcrime. The idiocy is overflowing.
Click to expand...

Entertaining isn't it ?

Damn, the comments are flowing faster than I can read them.
 
Stout said:
Entertaining isn't it ?

Damn, the comments are flowing faster than I can read them.
Click to expand...

I think the "jews did it" guy has abandoned it. The crap he is flinging is completely asinine. Only 1-2 now trying to go toe to toe with Ron. They're starting to slow down as well.
 
Marokkaan said:
Is this the level of jref? damn....
Click to expand...
Actually, yes.We have a very refined sense of humor. We only make fun of hopeless drongos. Schadenfreude is in bad taste when the object of laughter is the suffering schlimmazel, but the schlemiel getting it back in his face is fair game.
 
16.5 said:
Yes, although we were perhaps rude. We should have thanked you for posting a video that proves that Chandler and Neils are freaking idiots.

You see this smokey thing? Yeah, that is Dark brand nano-therm*te.

Face Palm.

/aren't you mad at these morons, Mar?
Click to expand...

Still, light or no light the unit appears to measurably accelerate well past the speed of gravity as if it was under impulse.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Still. light or no light the unit appears to measurably accelerate well past the speed of gravity as if it was under impulse.
Click to expand...

Two possible explanations are that Chandler's measurements aren't correct, or that a spinning piece of debris broke into two, throwing one piece downwards and the other upwards, giving an apparent downward acceleration of more than 1G for a couple of data points. That's without taking too much time or trouble to think about it.

All I'm taking away from this is a name for a familiar truther fallacy: Thermite in uno, thermite in omnibus. This is the fallacy by which anything displaying a single property attributable to thermite is concluded to be thermite, despite the fact that it clearly does not display a number of other properties that would necessarily be observed if it were. The Harrit et al paper is a classic example of TIUTIO, as is this video.

Dave
 
Marokkaan said:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvw0_i1rGns&feature=player_embedded

David chandler:

"The object (apparently a perimeter wall unit) raced ahead of its neighboring debris, but its acceleration was about 1/3 of gravity. This is an indication that it was kicked downward initially by an explosion, after which the air resistance partially canceled the effect of gravity as it approached terminal velocity. As it fell, however, there was an outburst of white smoke, at which point the projectile changed directions, slightly, and accelerated downward for about a half second at 1.5 times gravity. It then fell back to continued acceleration a little under 1 g.

The acceleration of the projectile is unambiguous proof that very energetic material was applied to the wall unit. What I found particularly surprising is that the ignition of the material in an unconfined space where it was free to expand three dimensionally would provide sufficient thrust due to expanding gasses alone to cause what was probably a 4-ton wall unit to accelerate 50% faster than gravity. The fact that the unit continued to accelerate close to freefall thereafter is an indication of an ongoing thrust capable of largely canceling the effect of air resistance."
Click to expand...

I have noticed this before.. yes those debris are clearly accelerating beyond the main mass. Whether it be thermite or something else..something was clearly there (that shouldn't have been) to make this happen.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I have noticed this before.. yes those debris are clearly accelerating beyond the main mass. Whether it be thermite or something else..something was clearly there (that shouldn't have been) to make this happen.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're correct. Great farkin' airplanes full of jet fuel.

Seriously. I worked in WTC 1 for more than ten years. In the entire time there, I cannot recall saying to Sylvia or Dennis, "Say, did you see that great farkin' jet airplane on the 80th floor. Another day at the office. Ho hum."
 
RedIbis said:
Either Chandler is off on his calculations or he's on, or perhaps close enough to require closer analysis of the projectiles.

Perhaps this the kind of new analysis that debunkers are always calling for. And perhaps if it is, that discussion can be civil and productive.

I'm genuinely curious. I don't have the knowledge to argue for or against such theories, but I do have the ability to understand the discussion, so I'm interested to hear either why Chandler is off on his calculations or how a gravity driven, naturally occuring (as opposed to CD) collapse could produce the rate of speed of the steel assembly that Chandler calculates.
Click to expand...

Ok, so much for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom