• 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

bill smith said:
Afraid not Oystein.You have enough in the video. Proceed with your analysis or we will draw the obvious conclusion.
Click to expand...

This is complete failure of logic. Ridiculous Bill. Seriously. "If no one will debunk this without us providing the accurate claims then it's accurate yeah". Claims need to have supporting evidence, not idiotic fantastical speculation with zero observables. There is no "rocket" observable. You're out of your mind Bill.
 
Oz1976 said:
This is complete failure of logic. Ridiculous Bill. Seriously. "If no one will debunk this without us providing the accurate claims then it's accurate yeah". Claims need to have supporting evidence, not idiotic fantastical speculation with zero observables. There is no "rocket" observable. You're out of your mind Bill.
Click to expand...

That reminds me...where IS Oystein anyway ? He must be finished the analysis by now surely ?
 
bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

Typical twoofer. Wanting everyone else to do the work for him. Laziness, the true mark of a "9/11 Activist". You and Dick Gage have a lot in common.
 
bill smith said:
That reminds me...where IS Oystein anyway ? He must be finished the analysis by now surely ?
Click to expand...

Let him deal with that. You need to keep busy pushing for your new investigation; his analysis will be presented as a rebuttal to your experts during those proceedings.

Wow. This is fun. You really can hand wave just about everything away with gibberish like this. Thanks bill.
 
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...

Nobody?
 
I can see three drivers in the motion of that sgement of perimeter columns.

There was the over-pressurization of the inside of the building when rubble built up against the walls. This tore the columns loose and shoved them away at more than free-fall acceleration. The now-falling object also took some entrained dust with it.

Gravity continued its downward acceleration.

There may have already been some wind driven by the collapse at this point, directed both outward and downward. It is impossible to move that mass of dust and rubble without also moving some air.
 
RedIbis said:
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...

By the way, it is interesting that Red Ibis mentions calculations, when The only thing I've seen from Chandler is a freaking You Tube video.

Revolution by You Tubeys!
 
I'm not even sure what is being claimed here. Are they saying the beams had some kind of rockets which propelled the beams after they were severed by thermite? Or is this just another "apparent anomaly" they've discovered to add to their list of evidence of questions?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...
So can we agree here that Harrit can't know that and is an irresponsible scientist?

RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

If.

Then yes, we'd need a theory.
I am all ears to hear a theory that involves rocket propellants.

I am interested here to estimate a minimum size of such propellant charges, and predict the appearance of the unavoidable recoil, and check whether it's there or not.

Without an upward recoil that matches the downward acceleration of the object, any rocket propulsion theory is on shaky grounds.
 
leftysergeant said:
I can see three drivers in the motion of that sgement of perimeter columns.

There was the over-pressurization of the inside of the building when rubble built up against the walls. This tore the columns loose and shoved them away at more than free-fall acceleration. The now-falling object also took some entrained dust with it.

Gravity continued its downward acceleration.

There may have already been some wind driven by the collapse at this point, directed both outward and downward. It is impossible to move that mass of dust and rubble without also moving some air.
Click to expand...

Haha! I say it, so it's true! Man, you come up with some real doozys.
 
Oystein said:
So can we agree here that Harrit can't know that and is an irresponsible scientist?



If.

Then yes, we'd need a theory.
I am all ears to hear a theory that involves rocket propellants.

I am interested here to estimate a minimum size of such propellant charges, and predict the appearance of the unavoidable recoil, and check whether it's there or not.

Without an upward recoil that matches the downward acceleration of the object, any rocket propulsion theory is on shaky grounds.
Click to expand...

If Chandler is wrong, show it.
 
bill smith said:
That reminds me...where IS Oystein anyway ? He must be finished the analysis by now surely ?
Click to expand...

Oystein has a real life. 'scoose me.

Yes, the analysis is finished, only waiting for parameters to be filled in.
You were quite unwilling to provide the claims from which parameters are deduced.

So is that object 4000kg? Are we seeing nanothermite at work? Bill, what proposition do you want to have analyzed?
I think you don't HAVE a proposition. Then I have nothing to analyse.
Get it, Bill Smith? YOU HAVE NO THEORY! THERE IS NOTHING TO BE DEBUNKED! YOU LOSE BY DEFAULT!
 
RedIbis said:
Haha! I say it, so it's true! Man, you come up with some real doozys.
Click to expand...
Let's break it down, then. Do you think that the segments of the perimeter walls, once torn free, fell entirely at g acceleration, with no energy input other than their own potential energy to drive them?
 
RedIbis said:
If Chandler is wrong, show it.
Click to expand...

Ok, you know the You Tubey?

Ok, go to the you tube. Hit play.

You know where he suggests that it is super dooper thermnight?

Ok, good. Now watch.

Notice the lack of a huge blinding flash? No thermite!

Excellent. Chandler is wrong. That was easy!

Now if you want to talk about calculations, tell the nit wit to act like a god damn professional and write a *********** paper.

Thanks!
 
RedIbis said:
If Chandler is wrong, show it.
Click to expand...

First things first, Red:

Harrit can't know it's nanothermite, right, RedIbis?
Harrit is an irresponsible scientist when he makes such claims, wouldn't you say so, RedIbis?

I am not interested in showing Chandler wrong. Dave Rogers took care of pointing out the obvious reasons to doubt Chandlers data. Just mentioning "paralax", "perspective" and "error margin".

I am interested in showing you that you, the truthers - you, RedIbis, you, tmd, you, Bill Smith, you, Marokkaan, you, David Chandler - don't really have a theory, and have it thought through.
Where is the recoil of the propellants? Where is the flame? Where are the jets of supersonic gasses and stuff?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom