• 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

Oystein said:
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?
Click to expand...


LOL right about what I expected.
 
riptowtan said:
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?
Click to expand...


Its both. Apparently painted on nanny super therm-night was on this panel and it suddenly ignited without any light and very little smoke (dust) and created a rocket motor impulse which resulted in a downward g of 1.5

Its likely that its simply a case of Chandlers software latching onto the edge of an object that rotated whilst in flight giving the illusion that the body as a whole was accelerating.

Thats assuming that Chandler is not simply making the whole thing up......:rolleyes:
 
tmd2_1 said:
There's nothing to rebut...hence exactly what I expected.
Click to expand...

tmd,
can you please do a summary of Chandler's claims, and explain what they mean (if true)?
I fully expect you to include numbers for certain physical properties in your summary.
 
Ackcherly.....

...the only technical fact worth considering is "Was that lump of steel doing more than G"

....which I doubt. Given Chandler's record on both halves of this sort of issue viz:
1) getting the measurement right to start with; THEN
2) Correctly interpreting same.

IIRC Chandler's record to date is ZERO ZERO on those two.

Now who can check the measurement??? 'coz if he's wrong - discussion over.

If he's right - we have a funny little anomaly to think about. :rolleyes:
 
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...

I just noticed this thread.....

Wow....has Chandler never heard of turbulent flow?

All you truthers should tell Chandler to take a break from "teaching" high school physics for a little while and start reading.....

He can start here
 
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.
Click to expand...

I doubt any over pressurization would have been greater than the maximum wind loads the columns were designed to withstands.

Gravity continued its downward acceleration.
Click to expand...

Definitely a possibility

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...

doubtful...I think the other two possibilities are a "snapping" of "spring" force that propelled them faster or a leverage type of force.
 
Animal said:
I doubt any over pressurization would have been greater than the maximum wind loads the columns were designed to withstands.
Click to expand...

Not relevant. Once the floors were bashed out by falling debris, periometer columns would go with the flow.
 
Oystein said:
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!
Click to expand...

Calm down Oystein.All we really needed to know from you was whether Chandler's claim that the unit was falling at well above the acceleration of gravity is true or not. From your lack of triumphalism I think that we can all assume that Chandler is correct in that respect.

So....from that we know that the unit was under propulsion of some kind which is already extremely significant in a collapse that is supposed to have been exclusively by the law of gravity.

Now all we need to know is how it was propelled or was being propelled.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Calm oown Oystein.All we really needed to know from you was whether Chandler's claim that the unit was falling at well above the acceleration of gravity is true or not. From your lack of triumphalism I think that we can all assume that Chandler is correct in that aspect.
Click to expand...
Oh - just because I, Oystein, haven't even checked Chandler's data?
Uhm no Sir, we can all not assume that at all.
You kinda missed the part where I said
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".​
Since you didn't get it: Here is just for you: I doubt Chandler's data and don't believe that he found actual downward acceleration in excess of g. It's just that I have neither the time nor the expertise to competently recreate Chandler's video analysis. Since Chandler forgot to show his work and went straight to making another stupid youtube, we can't actually check his work.

bill smith said:
So....we know that the unit was under propulsion of some kind
Click to expand...
No, we don't know that. Remember: "paralax", "perspective" and "error margin".

bill smith said:
which is already extremely significant in a collapse that is supposed to have been exclusively by the law of gravity.

Now all we need to know is how it was propelled or was being propelled.
Click to expand...
Yes. Please tell us! What are the claims you wish to have analysed?
 
Oystein said:
Oh - just because I, Oystein, haven't even checked Chandler's data?
Uhm no Sir, we can all not assume that at all.
You kinda missed the part where I said
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".​
Since you didn't get it: Here is just for you: I doubt Chandler's data and don't believe that he found actual downward acceleration in excess of g. It's just that I have neither the time nor the expertise to competently recreate Chandler's video analysis. Since Chandler forgot to show his work and went straight to making another stupid youtube, we can't actually check his work.


No, we don't know that. Remember: "paralax", "perspective" and "error margin".


Yes. Please tell us! What are the claims you wish to have analysed?
Click to expand...

You forgot 'low resolution video' and 'simply mistaken' Oystein.

So I guess that I will go with David Chandler's measurements of the speed and eccelaration of the 4-ton unit as you don't have the expertise to gainsay him.
 
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
First things first, Red:
snip....
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Bill Smith
LOL right about what I expected.
Click to expand...

You and me both. I fully expected Oystein to respond with concrete evidence supported by realistic observations, followed by you handwaving and being a typical truther.
 
bill smith said:
You forgot 'low resolution video' and 'simply mistaken' Oystein.

So I guess that I will go with David Chandler's measurements of the speed and eccelaration of the 4-ton unit as you don't have the expertise to gainsay him.
Click to expand...

Dude. Seriously.

I can prove Chandler wrong - all I did was graduate from a voc-tech in printing. Oh, and a few courses in IT....
 
bill smith said:
You forgot 'low resolution video' and 'simply mistaken' Oystein.
Click to expand...
Oh yea. Sure. And some more I guess. Whatever.

bill smith said:
So I guess that I will go with David Chandler's measurements of the speed and eccelaration of the 4-ton unit as you don't have the expertise to gainsay him.
Click to expand...
Cool!
Do you also go with Harrit (quoted by Chandler) saying it was nano-thermite?
 
Animal said:
I doubt any over pressurization would have been greater than the maximum wind loads the columns were designed to withstands.
Click to expand...

I disagree, we know windows were popped out so over pressure was higher than normal design loading. However I do think its unlikely to have been enough to blow out a panel. In any case I don't think that is an intact panel. Looks too small to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom