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

[Quad4_72]

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.

You should try addressing the calculations instead of answering a question with a question. Typical twoofer cowardice.

 

[leftysergeant]

Why does that moron Chandler expect a multi-ton object to fall at the same rate as freaking DUST?

 

[RedIbis]

You should try addressing the calculations instead of answering a question with a question. Typical twoofer cowardice.

Have you addressed the calculations?

 

[djlunacee]

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.

Its hopeless Oystein, Bill will never debate you on this or any subject, because if he takes a stance and backs one theory it all of a sudden defines him/her. We know Bill can't do this, because then he would not be free to float between alternate theories. Bill really is a special kind of truther, who is willing to accept any theory put forth that implicates US officials. It doesn't matter how insane the theories are, no planes, explosives, therm*te, or lawn gnomes, smoke generators, ceiling tiles, santa claus and the twoof fairy! We all know the ridiculousness of Chandler's claims of a propellant being used to push the debris past the collapse is absolutely assinine.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

If we presume that this was indeed a "rocket", has anyone asked why it's significant? On that video, this supposed "rocket" isn't even attached to the tower.

ETA: Ah. Oystein said it already. Ok. Good.

 

[djlunacee]

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.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! I know!!!!!!! ZERO!!!!!!! What do I win?????

 

[RedIbis]

Why does that moron Chandler expect a multi-ton object to fall at the same rate as freaking DUST?

Where does he say that?

 

[Oystein]

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.

Ok Red, are you ready to bite? Bill sure isn't.

If you have read the exchange so far, you will see that I have several times listed the base claims by Chandler. These base claims do NOT include actual rockets, only nano-thermite as the source of chemical energy.

So can YOU, RedIbis, agree that Chandler makes the following claims?

• 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
• The chemical energy for this acceleration beyond g (at least 5.2m/s2) was provided by nano-thermite acting as a propellant

Is that a fair rendering of Chandlers claims?

 

[NoahFence]

Have you addressed the calculations?

Why address calculations on a theory that is patently insane?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Want to bet on that? Chandler is a proven idiot, its much more likely he simply is misinterpreting the video as he has done before. Now those with time might show that to be the case but they are doing so because its a fun math problem not because they imagine for one second there is any merit whatsoever in Chandler silly claim.

Still no doubt someone will explain the error he made and the twoofers will hand wave it away.......

 

[RedIbis]

Ok Red, are you ready to bite? Bill sure isn't.

If you have read the exchange so far, you will see that I have several times listed the base claims by Chandler. These base claims do NOT include actual rockets, only nano-thermite as the source of chemical energy.

So can YOU, RedIbis, agree that Chandler makes the following claims?

• 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
• The chemical energy for this acceleration beyond g (at least 5.2m/s2) was provided by nano-thermite acting as a propellant

Is that a fair rendering of Chandlers claims?

As far as I can tell this is a fair assessment. The only thing I'd disagree with is that Chandler doesn't say the the acceleration beyond g "was provided by nano-thermite acting as a propellant." Again, from what I can tell he's only saying that something is propelling the steel "changing its acceleration from ~3 m/s^2 to ~15 m/s^2."

 

[Sunstealer]

The claim is pathetic - as already stated

Fe2O3 (solid) + 2Al (solid) --> 2Fe (liquid) + Al2O3 (solid)

Where's the gas component? (gas)

Remember any chemistry truthers? solid, liquid, gas, the 3 most common forms of matter. How does thermite produce gas? Or are they proposing that it was liquid Fe that was acting on a 4,000Kg beam? lol

If you think that thermite can act as a propellant then you have no understanding of what a rocket is or how the fuel for it works. Now there's a surprise.

Truthers - where is the gas? What is the thermite heating to produce gas that will expand and push a steel component? (regardless of weight) How is the reaction producing material that can push against the steel?

Thermite is a lousy rocket propellant. It produces lots of heat, but very little working fluid. For a rocket propellant to be powerful the propellant has to release a lot of heat energy and produce low molecular weight combustion products. That is why hydrocarbon fuels work so well, because the combustion products are relatively low molecular weight gaseous products - H2O, CO, CO2 - at chamber temperature and pressures. Liquid iron is not a low weight combustible product.

 

[GlennB]

So can YOU, RedIbis, agree that Chandler makes the following claims?

• 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
• The chemical energy for this acceleration beyond g (at least 5.2m/s2) was provided by nano-thermite acting as a propellant

Is that a fair rendering of Chandlers claims?

Good luck with the calculations, Oystein. I reckon you'll have to make some serious simplifying assumptions, otherwise I suspect the calculations will involve the integral of a trig function (what with the nanothermite blasting out every which way from the surface of a flat section). The dreaded radians might well be in there somewhere too.

While you're at it you might work out where "they" installed the gyroscopes. Hope we're not dumping too much work on your shoulders here

 

[sheeplesnshills]

As far as I can tell this is a fair assessment. The only thing I'd disagree with is that Chandler doesn't say the the acceleration beyond g "was provided by nano-thermite acting as a propellant." Again, from what I can tell he's only saying that something is propelling the steel "changing its acceleration from ~3 m/s^2 to ~15 m/s^2."

In the video he claims the propellant was "painted on". So not just "something", a specific layer on a specific surface would be required.

The propellant would also really have to be a high explosive as without a "nozzle" to drive the gas in a particular direction and increase its velocity there would be little if any impulse no matter how much propellant there was

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-fuel_rocket

For those that have fired off model rockets in any numbers (I teach a summer class in just that) you will know that if the nozzle fails you get almost no lift.

 

[Sunstealer]

As far as I can tell this is a fair assessment. The only thing I'd disagree with is that Chandler doesn't say the the acceleration beyond g "was provided by nano-thermite acting as a propellant." Again, from what I can tell he's only saying that something is propelling the steel "changing its acceleration from ~3 m/s^2 to ~15 m/s^2."

The following is a transcript

0:58 - 1:19 -

This projectile came up in a discussion with Niels Harrit at the Toronto hearings. Niels believes we are seeing nano-thermite in action. Literally acting as a rocket propellant. I figured it was the cause of the smoke and fragmentation that we see in other projectiles, but I was not convinced that the unconfined expanding gases on an open surface by itself would produce significant thrust.

2:33

it is clear we are looking at a very energetic material on the object. Niels is right. We are looking at a literal rocket projectile.

So yes all the clues are there that he is talking about thermite - When ever a truther uses the word energetic you can bet they mean thermite.

What I find funny is that his initial assessment was correct, how can expanding gasses do that on an open surface? However, he also doesn't understand the thermite equation. Here it is again

Fe2O3 (solid) + 2Al (solid) --> 2Fe (liquid) + Al2O3 (solid)

NO GASSES ARE PRODUCED. Thermite produces no gas. So he almost got there, but because of his lack of knowledge of what thermite actually is combined with his confirmation bias he ended up producing a video showing that he's an idiot.

He's also confirmed that Harrit doesn't know what he's talking about as well. Harrit has definitely lost it.

 

[Oystein]

As far as I can tell this is a fair assessment. The only thing I'd disagree with is that Chandler doesn't say the the acceleration beyond g "was provided by nano-thermite acting as a propellant." Again, from what I can tell he's only saying that something is propelling the steel "changing its acceleration from ~3 m/s^2 to ~15 m/s^2."

In the video, at 0:59 min:

"Niels [Harrit] believes we are seeing nano-thermite in action, literally acting as a rocket propellant"​

and later, at 2:28:

"It is clear that we are looking at a very energetic material on the object. Niels is right: We are looking at a literal rocket projectile."​

Okay, RedIbis and Bill Smith, so Chandler agrees with Harrit viz "literal rocket projectile", but does he, or do you, agree with Harrit viz. "nano-thermite"? If not, why not, and what other rocket propellant would you hypothesize?


I am telling you what I am aiming at:
When this supposed propellant accelerated the object downwards, it increased its downward Momentum P_object by a measurable amount: my calculation result from Chandlers's data is -8308 kg*m/s. Since momentum is a conserved property, it follows that the propellant itself must have acquired an opposite momentum of +8308 kg*m/s upwards. Momentum is mass times velocity. What I want is to get an idea what that mass was and what its velocity was.
To solve for these two variables, we need a second equation; this second equation is provided by the Law of Conservation of Energy: Before the "rocket" fires, it has a chemical energy E_chem that is the product of the mass of the reacting agent with its energy density. This chemical energy gets converted into at least three parts:
- heat (most of the energy will just heat up things and not propel anything)
- additional kinetic energy of the object: E_object. We can calculate this from Chandler's data, it's 385 kJ.
- kinetic energy of the propellant itself: E_propellant
At some point we should agree what the efficiency of the propellant is, that is what percentage of the chemical energy gets converted into kinetic energy, rather than heat (and light, and sound, and inelastic deformation...).

The mass and the velocity of the propellant then can be calculated, and they depend only on its energy density and efficiency.

We need at this point a theory about what the energy density is of that mysterious propellant. If Niels is right about nano-thermite, then we know: about 1.5 MJ/kg.

With the resulting mass and velocity, we can make predictions about whether or not, and how, the propellant itself would produce a visible effect, that should be more than just a dust trail

 

[Sunstealer]

In the video, at 0:59 min:

"Niels [Harrit] believes we are seeing nano-thermite in action, literally acting as a rocket propellant"​

and later, at 2:28:

"It is clear that we are looking at a very energetic material on the object. Niels is right: We are looking at a literal rocket projectile."​

Snap - lol.

 

[Oystein]

...
Where's the gas component? (gas)
...

If our resident truthers are willing to defend Niels' nano-thermite claim, then we'd have to throw in some mass in addition to the n-t, thus reducing its efficiency.

 

[Oystein]

Snap - lol.

Chandler is quote mining Harrit. He feigns agreement with Harrit, when in fact he refuses to agree with the nano-thermite part of Harrit's claim.

I think Chandler knows that nano-thermite is indefensible.

 

[000063]

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.

Which would require covert installation and split second precision control using wiring in a building that has been hit by a jumbo jet and set on fire.

That seems unlikely to me, Red "Larry made out like a bandit" Ibis.