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

[GlennB]

I can get an orange pip to outrun g with ease, though with its low terminal velocity it might take some serious camera technology to measure it. I don't know the technical term for the effect though .. "stored elastic strain energy" or something similar?

 

[Sunstealer]

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.

[truther mode]Which will be the mysterious binder material! That was a material that had carbon in it, so it could produce gas when burned!!!![/truther mode]

Don't forget that this super nano-thermite explosive, incendiary, rocket propellant was painted on and is 20µm (20 microns) thick!

 

[tmd2_1]

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

Your answer is nothing short of what is expected. That is to say you gave no answer at all. You just wrote a lot of "smart" sounding stuff hoping to lead this discussion in another direction. I'll make it simple explain how something can accelerate with a force greater than gravity, in less it is acted upon by another force. For example dropping a ball, vs throwing it to the ground.

 

[DGM]

Your answer is nothing short of what is expected. That is to say you gave no answer at all. You just wrote a lot of "smart" sounding stuff hoping to lead this discussion in another direction. I'll make it simple explain how something can accelerate with a force greater than gravity, in less it is acted upon by another force. For example dropping a ball, vs throwing it to the ground.

If you had an open mind you might be able to picture a flat rotating object. The fact you don't makes us not want to bother explaining it again.

 

[The Big Dog]

So, Red what have we learned:

1. Thermnite is VERY bright,
2. You can't make a rocket by painting something that burns on a steel beam.
3. Thermite reactions don't produce gas.

What else? Oh, Chandler says: if something is going faster, air pressure is higher. Now if Chandler had been a real scientist instead of a YouTubey scientist, he would have shown his calculations. But no, it has to go on YouTubey.

Anyway, I thought I'd test out his theory, so I went to the top of my building with my bowling ball and a sail from my boat, the ball was 16 pounds and the sail was a little heavier. I dropped the bowling ball, but I really heaved off and threw that sail straight down as hard as I could. I'm taking like 2 g, Red!

The test is not complete yet, as I am digging the ball out of the hole in the lawn, and the sail has not landed yet.

Who'd a thought surface area could have been so important, huh Red? Not Chandler, he has a PHD in YouTube.

/I notice a typo that I was going to fix, but on second thought I'm just going to call Chandler's magical dark thermite, THERMNIGHT brand Thermite

 

[bill smith]

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.

First things first Oystein. First verify that the unit IS actually falling well beyond the accelaration of gravity as Chandler claims. If it is, then it follows that we only need to identify the means of propulsion.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Your answer is nothing short of what is expected. That is to say you gave no answer at all.

TMD that wasn't an answer. He was discussing the parameters involved and the assumptions that have to be made in order to produce an answer.

Try to keep up. You are embarrassing yourself again.

 

[The Big Dog]

Your answer is nothing short of what is expected. That is to say you gave no answer at all. You just wrote a lot of "smart" sounding stuff hoping to lead this discussion in another direction. I'll make it simple explain how something can accelerate with a force greater than gravity, in less it is acted upon by another force. For example dropping a ball, vs throwing it to the ground.

Jesus, that IS hard!! Oh wait, my pencil just tipped over, yet the entire pencil hit the desk at the same time. That means the tip had to accelerate at greater than gravity!

Somebody painted my pencil with THERMNIGHT!

lulz

 

[RedIbis]

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.

He refuses to agree with Harrit's claim of nano-thermite because he's being a responsible scientist simply because he can't know that.

I know this is the part you want to focus on because it's much harder to explain, if Chandler's calculations are correct, the acceleration of the steel.

Again, if Chandler's calcs are correct, how does a gravity driven collapse produce the acceleration? I'm all ears.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ok I guess I'll be the one to tell you...this video doesn't actually have anything to do with rockets being fired into the WTC. It has to do with debris falling faster then the acceleration of gravity, a "rocket" like affect. I was trying to make a point that you say it is pointless to debate me, when you can't even get point of a thread right. How can you debate someone like this? If you really were a "truther" look deep within yourself, the official story is falling apart right before your eyes. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, and look at the responses most of the "debunkers" here give. It's mostly just ridicule and nonsense, you do at least try to make points, and stay civil, and even though you made a thread of how it's pointless to debate me, I do appreciate you trying to keep it civil, at least more so than 90% of the posters here.

It has not been a nice response, to be sure. Yet some things are so silly that it is really most polite to assume people are joking.

But OK, let me be a bore and answer seriously:

We don't see it accelerate. It comes speeding out of the general cloud.

This could mean that it has fallen farther than the bits surrounding it, that is, it was released earlier and higher up. It could have been ejected from the top part of the building, just after the collapse started.

Or, it could have been ejected in a downwards direction, possibly after a collision with another large ejected part. After all, in a chaotic event, things can be accelerated in the most surprising directions.

Even if it did accelerate, this could be due some perfectly mundane reason; for instance a pressure bottle, or a container where heat from the fire had built up pressure (a couple of years ago, in Copenhagen, a hot water tank, after overheating, shot out through the roof of one building, flew over a street and crashed through the roof of another building).

Hans

 

[The Big Dog]

He refuses to agree with Harrit's claim of nano-thermite because he's being a responsible scientist simply because he can't know that..

O'Rly?? Lets take a look at what your Hero wrote, shall we?

"Some of the debris from the South Tower at the World Trade Center shot downward faster than gravity. This is literal, visible proof of explosive materials painted onto perimeter wall units."

Hey Red, what did old Neils claim was an "explosive material" that can be "painted onto" walls?

Oh yeah, Nano-Thermnight. Now Red, before we engage in "calculations" why don't you explain how painted on thermnight act as an accelerant? Thanks, use physics

/before comments were disabled, I believe that Chandler flat out said that it was Nano-Thermnight, but obviously cannot prove it. Chandler can through.

 

[tmd2_1]

It has not been a nice response, to be sure. Yet some things are so silly that it is really most polite to assume people are joking.

But OK, let me be a bore and answer seriously:

We don't see it accelerate. It comes speeding out of the general cloud.

This could mean that it has fallen farther than the bits surrounding it, that is, it was released earlier and higher up. It could have been ejected from the top part of the building, just after the collapse started.

Or, it could have been ejected in a downwards direction, possibly after a collision with another large ejected part. After all, in a chaotic event, things can be accelerated in the most surprising directions.

Even if it did accelerate, this could be due some perfectly mundane reason; for instance a pressure bottle, or a container where heat from the fire had built up pressure (a couple of years ago, in Copenhagen, a hot water tank, after overheating, shot out through the roof of one building, flew over a street and crashed through the roof of another building).

Hans

I thought there would be answer like this, so take a look at this nice little chart I put together. The important columns are time and Ft (or meters depending on what you are use to looking at). Now I don't know exactly how far apart those two objects were apart from each other, but as you can see they would have had to start falling about 4 to 5 seconds apart from each other to create that type of distance. Something that is a clear impossibility. (Note I am not even addressing whether or not that is really acceleration or not, simply noting that anything of this type of nature, ie started falling sooner, is impossible.)


Time m/s km/h ft/s mph m ft
1 9.8 35.3 32.2 21.9 4.9 16.1
2 19.6 70.6 64.3 43.8 19.6 64.3
3 29.4 106 96.5 65.8 44.1 144.8
4 39.2 141 128.7 87.7 78.5 257.4
5 49.1 177 160.9 110 122.6 402.2
6 58.9 212 193 132 176.6 579.1
7 68.7 247 225 154 240.3 788.3
8 78.5 283 257.4 176 313.9 1,029.60
9 88.3 318 289.6 198 397.3 1,303.00
10 98.1 353 321.7 219 490.5 1,608.70

 

[bill smith]

O'Rly?? Lets take a look at what your Hero wrote, shall we?

"Some of the debris from the South Tower at the World Trade Center shot downward faster than gravity. This is literal, visible proof of explosive materials painted onto perimeter wall units."

Hey Red, what did old Neils claim was an "explosive material" that can be "painted onto" walls?

Oh yeah, Nano-Thermnight. Now Red, before we engage in "calculations" why don't you explain how painted on thermnight act as an accelerant? Thanks, use physics

/before comments were disabled, I believe that Chandler flat out said that it was Nano-Thermnight, but obviously cannot prove it. Chandler can through.

If it was the explosive version of nanothermite that propelled the unit it would almost certainly be packed INSIDE the hollow perimeter columns. Similar to how a rocket is packed with solid fuel.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I thought there would be answer like this, so take a look at this nice little chart I put together. The important columns are time and Ft (or meters depending on what you are use to looking at). Now I don't know exactly how far apart those two objects were apart from each other, but as you can see they would have had to start falling about 4 to 5 seconds apart from each other to create that type of distance. Something that is a clear impossibility. (Note I am not even addressing whether or not that is really acceleration or not, simply noting that anything of this type of nature, ie started falling sooner, is impossible.)


Time m/s km/h ft/s mph m ft
1 9.8 35.3 32.2 21.9 4.9 16.1
2 19.6 70.6 64.3 43.8 19.6 64.3
3 29.4 106 96.5 65.8 44.1 144.8
4 39.2 141 128.7 87.7 78.5 257.4
5 49.1 177 160.9 110 122.6 402.2
6 58.9 212 193 132 176.6 579.1
7 68.7 247 225 154 240.3 788.3
8 78.5 283 257.4 176 313.9 1,029.60
9 88.3 318 289.6 198 397.3 1,303.00
10 98.1 353 321.7 219 490.5 1,608.70

WTF? Yes we know about newton laws.

what two objects????

 

[The Big Dog]

I thought there would be answer like this, so take a look at this nice little chart I put together. The important columns are time and Ft (or meters depending on what you are use to looking at). Now I don't know exactly how far apart those two objects were apart from each other, but as you can see they would have had to start falling about 4 to 5 seconds apart from each other to create that type of distance. Something that is a clear impossibility. (Note I am not even addressing whether or not that is really acceleration or not, simply noting that anything of this type of nature, ie started falling sooner, is impossible.)


Time m/s km/h ft/s mph m ft
1 9.8 35.3 32.2 21.9 4.9 16.1
2 19.6 70.6 64.3 43.8 19.6 64.3
3 29.4 106 96.5 65.8 44.1 144.8
4 39.2 141 128.7 87.7 78.5 257.4
5 49.1 177 160.9 110 122.6 402.2
6 58.9 212 193 132 176.6 579.1
7 68.7 247 225 154 240.3 788.3
8 78.5 283 257.4 176 313.9 1,029.60
9 88.3 318 289.6 198 397.3 1,303.00
10 98.1 353 321.7 219 490.5 1,608.70

You put together a chart that you cut and pasted from the internet??

Hmm.

Anyway:

"Now I don't know exactly how far apart those two objects were apart from each other, but as you can see they would have had to start falling about 4 to 5 seconds apart from each other to create that type of distance."

Lulz. Someone stundie that

 

[tmd2_1]

You put together a chart that you cut and pasted from the internet??

Hmm.

Anyway:

"Now I don't know exactly how far apart those two objects were apart from each other, but as you can see they would have had to start falling about 4 to 5 seconds apart from each other to create that type of distance."

Lulz. Someone stundie that

Yeah I put together for you all to view on this site.

Yeah so you see the distance between that object and the main cloud is probably about 300 -400 ft from each other. So if they were dropped from the same location the object that has traveled the further distance would have had to have been dropped about 4 to 5 seconds before the main cloud. Something that clearly could not have happened.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now I don't know exactly how far apart those two objects were apart from each other, but as you can see they would have had to start falling about 4 to 5 seconds apart from each other to create that type of distance.

You're assuming that both the piece of debris and the dust cloud are accelerating downwards at 1g. In reality, the dust cloud is composed of very small particles with a very large ratio of cross-sectional area to mass, so the bottom edge of the dust cloud will already have reached its terminal velocity. The piece of debris is much larger and has a much smaller ratio of cross-sectional area to mass, so it should not have reached terminal velocity and therefore is still accelerating.

I've had a slightly longer look at Chandler's measurements, and two things are very clear. Firstly, he's taking the y value of each pixel on the video and assuming that it's directly proportional to the altitude of the piece of falling debris. This is incorrect; the object is not falling vertically and the camera angle is not horizontal, so there are parallax and perspective effects to consider. Parallax alone will increase the spacing between points, and scale up the absolute values of both velocity and acceleration; perspective will make velocities and accelerations appear greater close to the centre of the field of view, which is exactly what Chandler sees. Secondly, his inference of acceleration greater than 1G is based on a linear fit to only three data points, none of which have error bars. So Chandler's point is very far from proven, based on the measurements in the video; he'd have to do some rather more thorough investigation of the 3-D geometry before he had a valid point.

Even if his data points are correct, there's still the question of what, exactly, he's measuring the position of. The piece of debris in question is quite indistinct; it's not clear what shape it is, or whether it's rotating. If it's spinning in a vertical plane and Chandler is measuring something on one end, then the result would be for the apparent acceleration to vary over and under a general trend line, quite possibly exceeding 1G for a brief period.

I could look into this further, but to do so would take a great deal of time and effort, and given the record of the truth movement's claims to date it seems to me it would almost certainly turn out to be a complete waste of time. Of one thing we can be absolutely certain: this is not an effect caused by either explosives or thermite. Both would result in a short-lived and unmistakeable emission of flame and mass from the falling object; nothing of the sort is seen. So whatever the explanation, it doesn't appear to point in the direction of a 9/11 conspiracy.

Dave

 

[alienentity]

Hmm, I see David Chandler has now corrected his initial error and disabled comments on this video... and I thought he'd had a change of heart!

He is such a twit - delicious that he's a figurehead for 9/11 Truth!

I asked a couple of questions on the video comments, which I think are fair:

1) How does a painted on layer approx 1mm in thickness propel a heavy steel beam?
2) Therm*te and superthermite burn very brilliantly, producing showers of hot material. Why does the steel beam stay dull and dusty as it falls? Shouldn't we see the superthermite burning?

ETA - as I mentioned in the now-closed comments, if this claim of Chandler's is true, someone should call up NASA and tell them to paint the propellents on the skins of their rockets from now on, instead of wasting time stuffing them into tubes. If 1mm of nanothermite painted on can accelerate this large piece of steel, just think what 2mm on a rocket skin will do! This is going to save $$, perhaps allow new rocket technologies to develop.../sarcasm

 

[alienentity]

Second, measurement errors on Chandler's video:

How does the software he's using make accurate x/y measurements when the object he's trying to measure is moving on an unknown trajectory at a variable distance from the camera lens?

I don't get it. Isn't this just a perfect scenario to generate errors in data?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If it was the explosive version of nanothermite that propelled the unit it would almost certainly be packed INSIDE the hollow perimeter columns. Similar to how a rocket is packed with solid fuel.

Nope, according to Hattit and chandler it was painted on......but lets play here.....

The beams are sealed at the bottom with only a small hand hole at the base to allow the bolts to be tightened....so any vent would be at right angles to the beam, not longitudinally so all it would do is spin the panel around its cg

next problem is that you can't just pack it in as it would have only as very small burn front, Rocket motors are hollow up the middle to give a large burn area and hence large volume of gas.

third problem is that it can't be thermite as that produces almost no gas and hence almost no impulse, nor can it be a real explosive as that would simply blow the column apart. So it has to be a bona fides solid rocket propellant

next is that the impulse is of very short duration so would have to be very powerful to give the putative increase in G to such a massive object. A very powerful impulse requires a very powerful and narrow jet of gas which would be very visible. All we see is a puff of dust.....

next the results would be very obvious in the debris pile..........no "spent bottle rockets" were found. let alone remains of the trigger mech, timers etc.

lastly what the %^&$#%$ would be the point......you have already conceded that peel of the columns took steel section out 600 feet so what the heck would be the point of adding a pathetic 0.5G to a falling beam?