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

[tmd2_1]

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.

You can expect whatever you want. I told you what I wanted you to answer. Here it is again.

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 it...that's all I want to know. Keep in mind I've already shown that an object would have to be dropped 4 to 5 seconds sooner than an object at the same location, to get the distance we see in the video.

 

[MIKILLINI]

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.

How can it have merit Red? Chandler hasn't given out any full calculations to evaluate and discuss. All he has is a youtube video, so how can you call this proof of something malicious?

 

[NoahFence]

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.

Another force? Like say....air? Or another piece of the tower striking it?

oh, you mean another abnormal and thus obviously malicious force. gotcha.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Or, you know, no planer, it could be *********** garbage.

It takes a special kind of truther to back up the idiocy that this mutt published.

Chandler is an idiot, and this video is a slap in your face.

Whine moar truther. Chandler is a Judy Wood level fraud.

Take a physics class guy, he's a *********** idiot.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

lulz!

good point.

Hey Red, can you address this?

 

[RedIbis]

How can it have merit Red? Chandler hasn't given out any full calculations to evaluate and discuss. All he has is a youtube video, so how can you call this proof of something malicious?

You have a funny way of reading English. Where did I say this was proof of something malicious?

 

[A W Smith]

You can expect whatever you want. I told you what I wanted you to answer. Here it is again.

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 it...that's all I want to know. Keep in mind I've already shown that an object would have to be dropped 4 to 5 seconds sooner than an object at the same location, to get the distance we see in the video.

First prove to us that the panel IS in fact accelerating faster than free fall acceleration. To do this you of course will have to show at what altitude in the tower the panel began this fall. can you see through the dust and point that out for us?

 

[The Big Dog]

You have a funny way of reading English. Where did I say this was proof of something malicious?

yeah you missed the entire part of the post where he pointed out how worthless that Chandler is.

You have a funny way of ignoring English truther.

Keep bumping the thread, truther, Chandler is a *********** idiot.

 

[A W Smith]

The stupid! It not only burns! It has propulsion!

Every day you think truthers can't be more removed from reality, a thread like this shows up to prove us wrong.

Idiots. The whole lot of 'em.

Chandler has Gage cardboard box envy. He had to come up with something incredibly more stupid.

 

[JamesB]

Why is it that Truthers can't figure out that things appear bigger the closer they are to the camera? I think they see the world like the original Nintendo.

 

[TsuDhoNimh]

explosive materials painted on

And how do you not only paint on enough stuff to make a rocket, but manage to detonate it?

 

[TsuDhoNimh]

Lump of concrete? Whatever.

Those "small" rectangular objects are most probably the 1-floor tall aluminum cladding (whatever shape they were) that delaminated from the steel columns.

The steel box beams of the supporting columns were 3 stories tall with connecting sheets of steel bolted or riveted to them. If you trawl the NIST site photos, you can see many examples of them going in all directions, and hanging from the steel.

 

[ozeco41]

Those "small" rectangular objects are most probably the 1-floor tall aluminum cladding (whatever shape they were) that delaminated from the steel columns.

The steel box beams of the supporting columns were 3 stories tall with connecting sheets of steel bolted or riveted to them. If you trawl the NIST site photos, you can see many examples of them going in all directions, and hanging from the steel.

Sure...but don't lose the context. Both Oystein and I are quite familiar with the technical details. So no need to spoon feed the information to us.

The comment you quoted was made in the context of which bits of falling debris were most likely to be able to achieve near or over G acceleration.

We had the aluminium cladding as lower probability because of the low weight/high drag re;ationship.

So we are waiting till someone does the tracking to check if Chandler's acceleration estimates are right or wrong or where between those two they lie.

 

[GlennB]

Sure...but don't lose the context. Both Oystein and I are quite familiar with the technical details. So no need to spoon feed the information to us.

The comment you quoted was made in the context of which bits of falling debris were most likely to be able to achieve near or over G acceleration.

We had the aluminium cladding as lower probability because of the low weight/high drag re;ationship.

And the cladding panels had no drywall attached to explain the trail of dust.

 

[Oystein]

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.

*sigh*
You quoted my fully, but only responded to the one part that I said I am not interested in. How about responding to the rest, too, Red? I'll repeat, for your convenience:

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?

 

[Oystein]

You can expect whatever you want. I told you what I wanted you to answer. Here it is again.

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 it...that's all I want to know. Keep in mind I've already shown that an object would have to be dropped 4 to 5 seconds sooner than an object at the same location, to get the distance we see in the video.

Why should I explain that? Why should debunkers explain everything for you truthers? Can't you explain things for yourself? It is your theory that this Chandler data somehow means "nefarious agents demolished towers". But you continually fail to explain why this or that supposed observation means "CD".

Molten steel -> CD
Thing falls to fast -> CD
Some video does not exist -> CD
Israelis dance -> CD
Man wears blue shirt -> CD
Grandpa forgot where he left his teeth -> CD

The list could go on an on. There is always one element missing, that yours to provide, not ours: Reasoning. It should always go like this:

Molten steel -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic) -> CD
Thing falls to fast -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic) -> CD
Some video does not exist -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic) -> CD
Israelis dance -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic) -> CD
Man wears blue shirt -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic) -> CD
Grandpa forgot where he left his teeth -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic) -> CD

Please tell us how over-g acceleration of whatever object would prove CD! Make it a full case! If your Reasoning includes "nanothermite as rocket propellant", please explain what this nano-thermitic rocket propellant is, how it can be applied to CD skyscrapers, and why it would start to accelerate whatever object several seconds after that object has already detached from the building!

Once you start telling that story, it should strongly occur to you that it is total crap and more probably Chandler simply made a mistake.

 

[MRC_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

That is a table of gravity acceleration. Which objects are you comparing?

Now, if you have the speed of the fast object, you can calculate when it started falling. If that time is before the collapse started, then it must have been accelerated downwards (by a force greater than gravity). I have mentioned two scenarios where this could have happened.

Hans

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

I did a little more than that, actually. I pointed to three important aspects of the data that Chandler didn't take into account, suggested an alternative explanation which could account for Chandler's data, and pointed out other observables whose absence directly contradict his conclusion. I didn't give it much consideration because it didn't actually merit much consideration; it's clearly not a question of whether, but simply how, Chandler is wrong.

But, yes, after ten years of failing to see any wolves, I don't take the cries very seriously any more.

Dave

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Unfortunately, given the track record of "twoofie youtubes theories", that has long since become a reasonable default assumption.

After all, all we see is a fast object emerging from a chaotic event. It does not otherwise distinguish itself from other objects in that event. We can easily observe that some objects were imparted with highly variant lateral velocities in the crush-zone, so a few objects being actually hurled downwards should not really surprise anybody.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

You can expect whatever you want. I told you what I wanted you to answer. Here it is again.

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 it...that's all I want to know. Keep in mind I've already shown that an object would have to be dropped 4 to 5 seconds sooner than an object at the same location, to get the distance we see in the video.

Already answered. The same forces that propelled large pieces of wreckage several hundred yards laterally from the building: Tensions, snapping structure elements in the crush zone. Take a coffee mug and drop it on the floor: Does it form a nice little orderly heap or do the shards fly in all directions?

What is your problem with a few parts being thrown upwards or downwards?

Hans