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

[Oystein]

The challenge to all truthers in this thread (RedIbis, Bill Smith, Marokkaan), and to Niels Harrit and David Chandler of course, would be to explain why any evil agent would attach a slow-shooting rocket propellant to a 4-ton piece of steel and have it ignite after that piece has already broken clean off the building.

I really would like to hear that theory.

Also, if that piece has a mass of 4,000kg, as Chandler claims, and is accelerated at 50% above g, i.e. an additional acceleration of 4.9m/s² for 0.5 seconds, can somebody please do the math about how much energy that propellant had, how much mass it consequently must have had at the energy density of 1.5 kJ/g that nanothermite has, and how fast the reaction products must have been ejected upwards to account for the change of momentum (remember: momentum must be preserved).

Thanks

I think I will do those calcs on a napkin myself, but wait maybe a day to tell you. I really want to see our truthers at least try (and probably fail) first.

 

[Dash80]

Maybe the secret government hired the A Team for the job. Think about it, they were on the run from the american government, they were for hire,often they made canons to fire cabbages,Murdoch was a pilot, though i don't know if BA Baracus was involved cause he 'wasn't getting on no plane, fool'.
The secret government needed a reason to liberate the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and according to truthers they needed to kill thousands of people on 9/11 in a really complicated plot involving improvised silent explosives and other weapons made in a shed to do this. So the question had to be how are we gonna pull this off and Bush said "If we have a problem, if no one else can help, and if we can find them, maybe we can hire the A Team". Off course Hannibal was dead so Dick Cheney took his place, Face was pissed all the time so Rumsfeld took his role. The whole thing went down smooth and the A Team escaped with all the gold that's missing from under the world trade centre, well i say smooth, Cheney was injured and is now confined to a wheelchair sparking rumours that he pretended to be Ironside and was responsible for the investigation into 9/11 being a cover up.

See truthers we can make **** up too, it's easy! Of course you'd know that as you guys seem to have making **** up down to a fine art.

 

[bill smith]

The challenge to all truthers in this thread (RedIbis, Bill Smith, Marokkaan), and to Niels Harrit and David Chandler of course, would be to explain why any evil agent would attach a slow-shooting rocket propellant to a 4-ton piece of steel and have it ignite after that piece has already broken clean off the building.

I really would like to hear that theory.

Also, if that piece has a mass of 4,000kg, as Chandler claims, and is accelerated at 50% above g, i.e. an additional acceleration of 4.9m/s² for 0.5 seconds, can somebody please do the math about how much energy that propellant had, how much mass it consequently must have had at the energy density of 1.5 kJ/g that nanothermite has, and how fast the reaction products must have been ejected upwards to account for the change of momentum (remember: momentum must be preserved).

Thanks

I think I will do those calcs on a napkin myself, but wait maybe a day to tell you. I really want to see our truthers at least try (and probably fail) first.

The first thing you must do Oystein is to verify whether the falling unit is ccelerating downwards faster than gravity can account for.. If you cannot debunk that claim of David Chandler's then we lnow that the unit was under propulsion of some kind and you are just whistling in the wind.

 

[krad5]

David chandler:

[...]

Is this David Chandler really allowed to teach young students at a Highschool?

 

[GlennB]

The challenge to all truthers in this thread (RedIbis, Bill Smith, Marokkaan), and to Niels Harrit and David Chandler of course, would be to explain why any evil agent would attach a slow-shooting rocket propellant to a 4-ton piece of steel and have it ignite after that piece has already broken clean off the building.

I really would like to hear that theory.

With zero certainty that the piece would even detach, let alone align itself so that its <giggle> nanothermite rocket would be properly set. Hey - if it had turned the other way it might even have hovered. Without turning at all it could have ended up in the Hudson or Brooklyn or somewhere

This is all too funny, but JREF is waiting for a fresh delivery of laughing dogs.

Also, if that piece has a mass of 4,000kg, as Chandler claims, and is accelerated at 50% above g, i.e. an additional acceleration of 4.9m/s² for 0.5 seconds, can somebody please do the math about how much energy that propellant had, how much mass it consequently must have had at the energy density of 1.5 kJ/g that nanothermite has, and how fast the reaction products must have been ejected upwards to account for the change of momentum (remember: momentum must be preserved).

Thanks

I think I will do those calcs on a napkin myself, but wait maybe a day to tell you. I really want to see our truthers at least try (and probably fail) first.

1 gets you 100 that they don't even make the effort. I doubt if any of the Truthers here could even begin to attempt the calculations.

 

[Dash80]

The first thing you must do Oystein is to verify whether the falling unit is ccelerating downwards faster than gravity can account for.. If you cannot debunk that claim of David Chandler's then we lnow that the unit was under propulsion of some kind and you are just whistling in the wind.

What kind of propulsion bill?

Oh oh maybe it was steam turbines, nah bit too old school.

Oh I got it... Prop Fans!

Too big?

 

[Oystein]

The first thing you must do Oystein is to verify whether the falling unit is ccelerating downwards faster than gravity can account for.. If you cannot debunk that claim of David Chandler's then we lnow that the unit was under propulsion of some kind and you are just whistling in the wind.

In other words: You fail to meet the challenge to explain why any evil agent would attach a slow-shooting rocket propellant to a 4-ton piece of steel and have it ignite after that piece has already broken clean off the building.

And you also fail at doing the sanity check of computing whether the entire scenario is plausible to begin with.


For starters, let's try to find common ground and see what we can agree to:

Acoording to Chandler's video, at 2:12 minutes, the period of >g acceleration begins at
t1 = 1.8s with a downward speed of
v1 = -41.328 m/s
and end at
t2 = 2.2s with a downward speed of
v2 = -47.327 m/s
That's a
delta-v = -5.999 m/s
delta-t = 0.4s
a = -14.998 m/s²
According to Chandler's video, 2:39-2:49, the accelerated piece had a mass of 4 tons, or 4,000 kg.

1.) Do you agree, Bill Smith, that these are the claims of David Chandler?

2.) Chandler attributes to Harrit the hypothesis that nano-thermite is the energy source that propels this mass. Do you agree that this is the claim made in the video?


Just asking these preliminary questions to establish that we are working with the same data from Chandler and Harrit. Without all of us agreeing that this is a correct rendering of Chandler's claim, this debate cannot be had.

 

[bill smith]

In other words: You fail to meet the challenge to explain why any evil agent would attach a slow-shooting rocket propellant to a 4-ton piece of steel and have it ignite after that piece has already broken clean off the building.

And you also fail at doing the sanity check of computing whether the entire scenario is plausible to begin with.


For starters, let's try to find common ground and see what we can agree to:

Acoording to Chandler's video, at 2:12 minutes, the period of >g acceleration begins at
t1 = 1.8s with a downward speed of
v1 = -41.328 m/s
and end at
t2 = 2.2s with a downward speed of
v2 = -47.327 m/s
That's a
delta-v = -5.999 m/s
delta-t = 0.4s
a = -14.998 m/s²
According to Chandler's video, 2:39-2:49, the accelerated piece had a mass of 4 tons, or 4,000 kg.

1.) Do you agree, Bill Smith, that these are the claims of David Chandler?

2.) Chandler attributes to Harrit the hypothesis that nano-thermite is the energy source that propels this mass. Do you agree that this is the claim made in the video?


Just asking these preliminary questions to establish that we are working with the same data from Chandler and Harrit. Without all of us agreeing that this is a correct rendering of Chandler's claim, this debate cannot be had.

The way it works Oystein is that Chandler has made a claim. You must debunk this claim or fail. We* will analyse your final results and not participate in the analysis before you make your counter claim. Understood ? The onus is on you, not us.

* speaking for myself obviously.

 

[Oystein]

THe way it works Oystein is that Chandler has made a claim. You must debunk this claim or fail. We* will analyse your final results and not participate in the analysis before you make your counter claim. Understood ? The onus is on you, not us.

* speaking for myself obviously.

THe way it works Bill Smith is that we first must agree what claims Chandler has made. Then I may or may not debunk them.

So please, can you please state the claims made by Chandler? Briefly, if possible, and with numbers attached!

 

[BStrong]

What kind of propulsion bill?

Oh oh maybe it was steam turbines, nah bit too old school.

Oh I got it... Prop Fans!

Too big?

Mentos and pepsi

 

[bill smith]

THe way it works Bill Smith is that we first must agree what claims Chandler has made. Then I may or may not debunk them.

So please, can you please state the claims made by Chandler? Briefly, if possible, and with numbers attached!

Afraid not Oystein.You have enough in the video. Proceed with your analysis or we will draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[Oystein]

Afraid not Oystein.You have enough in the video. Proceed with your analysis or we will draw the obvious conclusion.

If you can't state the claims that you wish to have debated, or agree which claims have been made, how can there be a debate?

Bill, a simple YES or NO to the following, please:

"David Chandler claims that

• there was a period of 0.4 seconds during which an object accelerated at 14.998m/s² (average), or roughly 50% more than g
• This object was a piece of perimeter panel (structural steel) with a mass of about 4,000kg
• This acceleration beyond g (5.2m/s² or more) was brought about by nano-thermite acting as a propellant

"
Can you agree that this is the claim made in the video? If you can't agree to that, we will have to conclude the obvious. Which is that you are a troll, uninterested in any debate.

 

[bill smith]

If you can't state the claims that you wish to have debated, or agree which claims have been made, how can there be a debate?

Bill, a simple YES or NO to the following, please:

"David Chandler claims that

• there was a period of 0.4 seconds during which an object accelerated at 14.998m/s² (average), or roughly 50% more than g
• This object was a piece of perimeter panel (structural steel) with a mass of about 4,000kg
• This acceleration beyond g (5.2m/s² or more) was brought about by nano-thermite acting as a propellant

"
Can you agree that this is the claim made in the video? If you can't agree to that, we will have to conclude the obvious. Which is that you are a troll, uninterested in any debate.

There is nothing to debate until you have concluded your analysis Oystein. I will neither confirm nor deny anything in the video at this time. After all we both have the same detail. Proceed or fail..

 

[NoahFence]

Every day you think truthers can't be more removed from reality, a thread like this shows up to prove us wrong.

Idiots. The whole lot of 'em.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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.

Just like thermite was the truther "solution" to silent explosives, after years of claiming that the buildings collapsed at free-fall acceleration and having the debris from the collapse being ahead of the collapse front thrown back at them as proof against the claim... they've finally decided that the "solution" to this problem is that rockets actually were attached to the debris?

Psst! When some of us asked, "What; were there rockets attached to the debris," it was a joke.

Maro really makes me laugh, he whines about the level of JREF when he can barely string an intelligent set of words together.

To be fair, English is not his primary language. He also probably has no personal or professional need to speak fluent English.

 

[Oystein]

There is nothing to debate until you have concluded your analysis Oystein. I will neither confirm nor deny anything in the video at this time. After all we both have the same detail. Proceed or fail..

What IS that detail, Bill Smith? The video is NOT the detail, Bill Smith!

I need to know: If my work includes "Chandler claims object weighs 4 tons", will you reject my work because you don't accept that Chandler claims object weighs 4 tons, or not?
If my work includes "Chandler claims object accelerated at 14.998m/s² (average) for 0.4s", will you reject my work because you don't accept that Chandler claims object accelerated at 14.998m/s² (average) for 0.4s, or not?
If my work includes "Chandler claims energy for this acceleration beyond g comes from nano-thermite", will you reject my work because you don't accept that Chandler claims energy for this acceleration beyond g comes from nano-thermite, or not?

I simply need to know if we both understand Chandlers claims the same way. If we can't agree on this premise, there will be no debate.

If you can't even state the premises for the debate, the obvious conclusion is that you default and give up before even starting.

 

[RedIbis]

The challenge to all truthers in this thread (RedIbis, Bill Smith, Marokkaan), and to Niels Harrit and David Chandler of course, would be to explain why any evil agent would attach a slow-shooting rocket propellant to a 4-ton piece of steel and have it ignite after that piece has already broken clean off the building.

I really would like to hear that theory.

Also, if that piece has a mass of 4,000kg, as Chandler claims, and is accelerated at 50% above g, i.e. an additional acceleration of 4.9m/s² for 0.5 seconds, can somebody please do the math about how much energy that propellant had, how much mass it consequently must have had at the energy density of 1.5 kJ/g that nanothermite has, and how fast the reaction products must have been ejected upwards to account for the change of momentum (remember: momentum must be preserved).

Thanks

I think I will do those calcs on a napkin myself, but wait maybe a day to tell you. I really want to see our truthers at least try (and probably fail) first.

You appear to be one of the very few so-called debunkers (I'd put Mr. Skinny in this category as well) who genuinely seems to want to discuss these issues in detail, who generally avoids rancor, and can actually have a civil discussion without turning each exchange into a pissing match heaped with worn out doggy gifs. So I'm going to assume you realize that Chandler does not mean that a literal rocket was attached to the steel section, but something acted as a propellant.

 

[BStrong]

You appear to be one of the very few so-called debunkers (I'd put Mr. Skinny in this category as well) who genuinely seems to want to discuss these issues in detail, who generally avoids rancor, and can actually have a civil discussion without turning each exchange into a pissing match heaped with worn out doggy gifs. So I'm going to assume you realize that Chandler does not mean that a literal rocket was attached to the steel section, but something acted as a propellant.

What was that propellant, and how do it know?

 

[twinstead]

From what I can see and what I have heard from everybody whom I have talked to who would know, physics can explain the behavior of the debris as it was falling without resorting to something acting as a propellant. I realize it's easy to convince the truther choir, but I'm curious as to how many real experts--the kind of experts that can get things done and organizations interested--Chandler is going to convince considering he insists on keeping the debate in the Halls of YouTube instead the Halls of Academia.

 

[The Big Dog]

You appear to be one of the very few so-called debunkers (I'd put Mr. Skinny in this category as well) who genuinely seems to want to discuss these issues in detail, who generally avoids rancor, and can actually have a civil discussion without turning each exchange into a pissing match heaped with worn out doggy gifs. So I'm going to assume you realize that Chandler does not mean that a literal rocket was attached to the steel section, but something acted as a propellant.

The problem is Red, is that you have not explained how "something" acting as a "propellant" worked.

Seriously, anyone with a basic understanding of rocketry and physics knows how laughable this is. What is the propellant "pushing" against??? You are lucky you are getting laughing dogs, because all you have done is whine.

Start using your head.