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

[bill smith]

Oh yea. Sure. And some more I guess. Whatever.


Cool!
Do you also go with Harrit (quoted by Chandler) saying it was nano-thermite?

We'll see in due course. But not tronight I'm afraid.

 

[NoahFence]

Dude. Seriously.

Don't just claim you can - do it, will ya!

Me personally or do it like a twoofer?

 

[NoahFence]

We'll see in due course. But not tronight I'm afraid.

LOL

I guess we'll be getting that about the same time RedIbis proves Silverstein made out like a bandit, or ergo comes up with a narrative for the whole day.

Or was that CE we were waiting on? Markk? FEMR or Major_Tom?

bah, it was one of you....

 

[ozeco41]

Lump of concrete? Whatever.

Probably close.

I had in mind that steel is the least likely to be affected by drag. And though concrete is less dense than steel you could be right - the drag on a lump of concrete could easily be less than the drag on the same mass of steel given the expected shapes of steel sections.

Certainly Aluminium cladding would have more drag than either.

With dust a long way back in the race....

 

[Oystein]

We'll see in due course. But not tronight I'm afraid.

Whatever.
Without a hypothesis about what the propellant is, I am missing at least two parameters in my analysis, and can't give you the solutions I am after, and that you should be after, too:
- How much of that rocket propellant was used there?
- What effects, other than accelerating the object, would it have had, such as flames and supersonic jets?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

You think wrong. He is under no obligation to show anything. Its Chandler that has to prove he's right, a youtubbie doesn't count in the real world.
Once he has it in a peer reviewed published paper then perhaps he can expect a reposte but up till then anything he get is an extra.

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.

we know no such thing. We only have chandler and his softwares word on that.....and even if the reading is correct there are such things as air currents that could easier cover a slight increase in acceleration

Now all we need to know is how it was propelled or was being propelled.

a gust of air.........anomaly over.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Lump of concrete? Whatever.

actually that makes more sense than a wall panel. Possibly ejected by the pancaking of the floors in advance of the wall peeling back and being concrete more likely to trail dust. Also thin and flat so likely to be affected by air flow and more likley to give of dust etc as it flexes/breaks up.....

 

[Oystein]

Probably close.

I had in mind that steel is the least likely to be affected by drag. And though concrete is less dense than steel you could be right - the drag on a lump of concrete could easily be less than the drag on the same mass of steel given the expected shapes of steel sections.

Certainly Aluminium cladding would have more drag than either.

With dust a long way back in the race....

Chandler claims a wall panel of 4 tons - that's 3 box columns and 3 spandrels. The box columns are mostly air, and the spandrels are sheets that could act somewhat as sails. I say he's nuts, that object certainly is not a wall panel; just pointing out that we are not necessarily talking about solid steel.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

some are too easily led.......

remember the 600ft and the Winter garden......certainly not the first time you listened to the wrong folks is it

 

[Oystein]

...Its Chandler that has to prove he's right, a youtubbie doesn't count in the real world.
Once he has it in a peer reviewed published paper then perhaps he can expect a reposte but up till then anything he get is an extra.
...

I wouldn't demand a peer-reviewed paper on something so obviously inconsequential as this. A good blog post showing his work, and a link to a high-quality copy, ideally unaltered from the original, will do just fine.

 

[leftysergeant]

As I stated above, the over-pressure on the collapsing floors clearly accelerates objects as they break free. We cannot reasonably expect that acceleration to be uniform, since some of the failing element will offer greater resistance than others.

Bear in mind, too, that the elements which have fallen away from the building are hardly marching in tight formation as they travel downward.

At the time that Chandler's "rocket" appears, elements were failling in both the standinng part of the tower and in what remained of the upper block so that there were almost surely collisons between objects from both blocks within the dust plume. This would tend to change the direction of travel, and probably the speed of both objects.

Chandler is, to some degree, trying to impose too much order in a neccessarily chaotic situation and drawing inaccurate conclusions when his model fails.

 

[ozeco41]

Chandler claims a wall panel of 4 tons - that's 3 box columns and 3 spandrels. The box columns are mostly air, and the spandrels are sheets that could act somewhat as sails. I say he's nuts, that object certainly is not a wall panel; just pointing out that we are not necessarily talking about solid steel.

We are on the same sheet of music.

 

[tsig]

Just like thermite was the truther "solution" to silent explosives, after years of claiming that the buildings collapsed at free-fall acceleration and having the debris from the collapse being ahead of the collapse front thrown back at them as proof against the claim... they've finally decided that the "solution" to this problem is that rockets actually were attached to the debris?

Psst! When some of us asked, "What; were there rockets attached to the debris," it was a joke.


To be fair, English is not his primary language. He also probably has no personal or professional need to speak fluent English.

I was gonna mention that. Have we come full circle when what starts out as a joke is now proposed in all seriousness by the leading lights of 911 trutherdom?

 

[tsig]

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.

Bill's a 'no-specifics' truther.

 

[tsig]

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.

That's where the radio controlled explosive ceiling tiles come in.

Yes, there were operatives standing by with radio transmitters who triggered the tiles at the right moment.

Why? Because we can, we choose to do it not because it's easy but because it's hard and we love to rub your face in it. HHAAAA!!!!! HHAAAA!!!

ETA:Say did anybody lose a cat? Here kitty kitt........

 

[tsig]

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

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.

That's what he was doing but since you don't understand "smart" sounding stuff you missed it.

 

[tsig]

THERMNIGHT!

/I'm pushing that one hard. I want it to become the new hush-a-boom

Thermight 'cause it might do this or it might do that depending on what your theory needs.

 

[tsig]

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.

You might even say it's twisting slowly in the wind.

 

[tsig]

If Chandler is wrong, show it.

Show what? That pieces of debris were not rocket propelled?

 

[RedIbis]

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?

Dave Rogers gave reason to doubt because he's a contrarian. He admitted he didn't give it all that much consideration. He's assuming, as many here are, that because it's produced by a twoofie on the youtubes no less it can't possibly have merit.