• 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

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...
David has never flown a ruler. How can a physics teacher make so many idiotic claims?

The video will fool only a few insane people. David had to disable the comments because he can't take the truth his claims are delusional claptrap. Thermite was painted on steel at the WTC.
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

facepalm01.jpg



Just when you think TMD can't say anything dumber he surprises us all......now he expects dust to fall at the same rate as a steel beam......apparently he doesn't know about drag coefficients......

now if man really had gone to the moon they could have dropped a feather and a hammer to see what happens if there is no air....:rolleyes:
 
sheeplesnshills said:
[qimg]http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/facepalm01.jpg[/qimg]


Just when you think TMD can't say anything dumber he surprises us all......now he expects dust to fall at the same rate as a steel beam......apparently he doesn't know about drag coefficients......

now if man really had gone to the moon they could have dropped a feather and a hammer to see what happens if there is no air....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Right...so that debris that was falling ahead of the cloud was the only debris falling? Because that is the only piece this behavior is observed in.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
[qimg]http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/facepalm01.jpg[/qimg]


Just when you think TMD can't say anything dumber he surprises us all......now he expects dust to fall at the same rate as a steel beam......apparently he doesn't know about drag coefficients......

now if man really had gone to the moon they could have dropped a feather and a hammer to see what happens if there is no air....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You know, I have a hard time trying to remember how to spell fiziks, and even I know that dust will fall substantially slower than a steel beam. These truthers here are a strange lot. Not a single one has shown what could be mistaken as a coherent thought, or a reasonable argument. EVERYTHING they argue about is more wrong than the previous.

Amazing.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Right...so that debris that was falling ahead of the cloud was the only debris falling? Because that is the only piece this behavior is observed in.
Click to expand...

at that resolution of video who knows? It simply is the largest part with the lowest drag coefficient. Chandlers software likely latches onto one end of the object and follows that edge as the part rotates to, or away, from the camera......0.5 seconds seems to be a reasonable time to spin such a object.

I'm curious as to what it is though....I don't think it is a wall panel as in the last video clip we see wall panels falling afterwards and they are much bigger than his "rocket powered" object.
 
DGM said:
Wait......You can do that? I liked 16.............(the 70's were so fun)

:boxedin:
Click to expand...

We can do just about anything up here in NWO towers....

I liked the 70's too, what i can remember of them.
 
DGM said:
Wait......You can do that? I liked 16.............(the 70's were so fun)

:boxedin:
Click to expand...

...err....hmmmm

The 50's???? ;)

I sort of "...liked the 70's too, what i can remember of them." Mortgages, kids, starting school. #2 daughter started playing soccer. She is still playing. Yup that was the 70's - except the mortgage - that was '68 :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
Is it really the claim that therm*te was painted on the steel, and it was an excellarant?
Click to expand...

I was worrying about that aspect. I don't think it was part of the claim.

Now folks we are the good guys - we ride the white horses and have shiny silver six shooters.

....and we always tell the truth. AND we ride off into the sunset at the end - usually without the girl. The OTHER side are the untruthful ones.

So can we stop quote mining and strawman making and.....

...surely there are enough arguments against this claim without our side telling porkies or getting loose with the logic.

It's enough to get me saying "Red Was Right" - but I would have to re-read the thread and watch the video first just to make sure. :(
 
ozeco41 said:
I was worrying about that aspect. I don't think it was part of the claim.

Now folks we are the good guys - we ride the white horses and have shiny silver six shooters.

....and we always tell the truth. AND we ride off into the sunset at the end - usually without the girl. The OTHER side are the untruthful ones.

So can we stop quote mining and strawman making and.....

...surely there are enough arguments against this claim without our side telling porkies or getting loose with the logic.

It's enough to get me saying "Red Was Right" - but I would have to re-read the thread and watch the video first just to make sure. :(
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it, Red is wrong as usual.

Here is what Chandler wrote on his You Tube Channel:

"This is literal, visible proof of explosive materials painted onto perimeter wall units."

Here is what he says on 911 Blogger:

"The acceleration of the projectile is unambiguous proof that very energetic material was applied to the wall unit."

That is not quote mining, that is not a straw man, that is from the man's own keyboard. Pointing out the man's words, even if they are pants on head stupid like these, is not improper.

Although, I'm not sure that "excellarant" is Websters approved.
 
Last edited:
They had them rockets in the north tower too. The thermnight propellant in this one is so advanced you can't even see it. It don't even leave a smoke trail.


rockett.png


 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Apparently. Also, it's reaction was invisible.
Click to expand...

That is just the most insane premise I've ever heard, and these people have come up with some doozies. Painted on therm*te capable of expelling massive steel beams is right up there with anything Dusty's come up with.


I mean, isn't their point of thermite to burn through the steel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom