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

[bill smith]

The way I see it David Chandler has isolated a large piece of wreckage that is measurably falling at up to 1.5g.This is already very significant and. if accurate is proof of a force acting on that piece of wreckage that cannot be explained by the physics of the collapse as given.

Nanothermite acting as a kind of rocket propellant has been proposed as the force driving the piece downwards. But there are few of the visuals expected in the burning of nanothermite in open air like brilliant fire. There are some apparent smoke trails but these are inconclusive, certainly to me.

All I know for sure at this time is that there definitely appears to be a high force acting on the piece that cannot be explained in the OCT.

I think David Chandler needs to add some more detail to the hypothesis for us to work with.

 

[Oystein]

...
I think David Chandler needs to add some more detail to the hypotheseis for us to work with.

Took for you a long time to figure out what was immediately obvious to everyone else: That truthers (again) have no theory and no explanation.

I think however you are wrong: Chandler's work is almost certainly wrong; there is no acceleration beyond g of the object's center of mass at that stage of its fall. This is a classical case of a false positive.

 

[MRC_Hans]

All I know for sure at this time is that there definitely appears to be a high force acting on the piece that cannot be explained in the OCT.

Heloooo! I also indicated a scenario where it might actually be propelled:

Pressure bottles, or some container under pressure due to heat.
Oxygen bottles (which have pressures up to 150bar) can fly several hundred yards.

Hans

 

[bill smith]

Took for you a long time to figure out what was immediately obvious to everyone else: That truthers (again) have no theory and no explanation.

I think however you are wrong: Chandler's work is almost certainly wrong; there is no acceleration beyond g of the object's center of mass at that stage of its fall. This is a classical case of a false positive.

I have theory aplenty Oystein. This particular aspect is unexpected to me though and I can't easily fit nanothermite into the perimeter columns.

 

[bill smith]

Heloooo! I also indicated a scenario where it might actually be propelled:

Pressure bottles, or some container under pressure due to heat.

Hans

Noted Hans. Though there was one piece in a different video that shoots out to the right and then changes direction 90 degress almost instantly trailing smoke out and then down in a flash. That looked more rocket like to me . It might have been a piece of core column too which could neatly slot into my theory.

 

[RedIbis]

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

I said from my first post in this thread that Chandler's calcs could be off. What I'm curious to see is how they're off. All you've done, in true contrarian style, is provide reason for doubt without actually applying any of that to Chandler's analysis. But since you don't believe it deserves much consideration, a) I'm curious why you'd even post in this thread and b) you give me just as much reason to doubt you as Chandler.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

You can want what you want..... and the answer has been given to you several times. Chandler is wrong in his measurements

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.

No you didn't. You showed a table with a thing falling at 1g. None of the objects in the video are doing that because of drag. The object Chandler measure is only accelerating at 0.3g when he starts measuring it. Its a flat object whose air resistance changes dramatically as it tumbles.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I said from my first post in this thread that Chandler's calcs could be off. What I'm curious to see is how they're off. All you've done, in true contrarian style, is provide reason for doubt without actually applying any of that to Chandler's analysis.

Not true at all; I've pointed out specific phenomena Chandler didn't account for in his calculations, and specific phenomena that contradict Chandler's claimed conclusion. Beyond that, Chandler's analysis is so simplistic and so obviously flawed that it's hardly worth addressing in detail; he hasn't measured the height of the object correctly, and based on that incorrect measurement he's deduced something from a straight line fit to three data points whose error margin isn't specified. He'll have to do a lot more to reach any reasonable threshold of proof that there's even a phenomenon here to explain.

But since you don't believe it deserves much consideration, a) I'm curious why you'd even post in this thread

To offer suggestions to anyone who might want to do a more rigorous analysis. There may be something mildly interesting to be discovered here that has nothing to do with hysterical nonsense about rockets flying out of the WTC during its collapse.

and b) you give me just as much reason to doubt you as Chandler.

If you can some day learn to doubt, not only truthers, but yourself, as much as you doubt me, then there's hope for you.

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Show us one that ever had merit. twoofers are batting 0.00 so far.

Given that thermite cannot do what he's claiming, lack of merit is a safe bet.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Noted Hans. Though there was one piece in a different video that shoots out to the right and then changes direction 90 degress almost instantly trailing smoke out and then down in a flash. That looked more rocket like to me . It might have been a piece of core column too which could neatly slot into my theory.

I have already commented on your theory. For the sake of good tone, I shall refrain from repeating it.

You might realize that the air is full of all sizes of debris flying in all directions, and some mid-air collisions are to be expected. Unless you can point to some special characteristic of the 'smoke' you will have to forgive me for I assuming it is trailing dust like all the rest.

I will comment about it slotting into your theory, after all: If your nanothermite-filled column developed enough pressure to propel it anywhere, it is bloody unlikely that they should not explode in all directions, rather than discretely drain steel into the hidden basement.

How exactly do you think a tube of (nano)thermite would look, flying around? It would not only tail smoke but glaring flames and shower drops of white-hot steel.

Hans

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Noted Hans. Though there was one piece in a different video that shoots out to the right and then changes direction 90 degress almost instantly trailing smoke out and then down in a flash. That looked more rocket like to me . It might have been a piece of core column too which could neatly slot into my theory.

LOL I guessed you missed the debunking of that one..........It was IIRC simply one of the light AL panels and Chandler forgetting the world is 3D

 

[RedIbis]

To offer suggestions to anyone who might want to do a more rigorous analysis. There may be something mildly interesting to be discovered here that has nothing to do with hysterical nonsense about rockets flying out of the WTC during its collapse.

Leaving yourself an out I see.

 

[bill smith]

I have already commented on your theory. For the sake of good tone, I shall refrain from repeating it.

You might realize that the air is full of all sizes of debris flying in all directions, and some mid-air collisions are to be expected. Unless you can point to some special characteristic of the 'smoke' you will have to forgive me for I assuming it is trailing dust like all the rest.

I will comment about it slotting into your theory, after all: If your nanothermite-filled column developed enough pressure to propel it anywhere, it is bloody unlikely that they should not explode in all directions, rather than discretely drain steel into the hidden basement.

How exactly do you think a tube of (nano)thermite would look, flying around? It would not only tail smoke but glaring flames and shower drops of white-hot steel.

Hans

I think that the selected and melted core columns up to around the 88th floor were pumped full of the solely incendiary version of nanothermite. I can't really explain the rockets using that theory. But it can't be denied. The piece that flew out to the right changing direction sharply from out to down sure did behave like a rocket. The razor sharp change of direction had nothing to do with the physics we were given. As FEMA would say, more investigation is needed.

PS:.It behaved pretty much like a firework gone wrong in fact.

PPS: '' The first bottle rocket Briggs launched traveled about 20 feet into the air, then made a 90 degree turn and flew into the garage of a neighboring house''

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/PIO/oralArguments/11/0302/0302.asp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChR1XcYhlw Rocket video

 

[Dave Rogers]

Leaving yourself an out I see.

I've learned a lot that's mildly interesting from corrections of truthers' basic misconceptions of how the world works. It's one of the two rational reasons for being here (I've already commented on the irrational ones). I may learn something minor but new about the construction of the WTC, or about Newtonian dynamics. What will not come out of this is a consensus, among people sane enough for their consensus to be worthy of consideration, that nanothermite provided rocket motors for falling debris - or, for that matter, did anything else whatsoever - in the WTC collapses.

Dave

 

[The Big Dog]

Leaving yourself an out I see.

Huh, I was thinking that was a kind way of pointing out that he was not your b....

uh, lackey.

Rockets at the world trade center.

Aren't you mad at Chandler for publishing such idiocy?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I think that the selected and melted core columns up to around the 88th floor were pumped full of the solely incendiary version of nanothermite. I can't really explain the rockets using that theory. But it can't be denied. The piece that flew out to the right changing direction sharply from out to down sure did behave like a rocket. The razor sharp change of direction had nothing to do with the physics we were given. As FEMA would say, more investigation is needed.

PS:.It behaved pretty much like a firework gone wrong in fact.

PPS: '' The first bottle rocket Briggs launched traveled about 20 feet into the air, then made a 90 degree turn and flew into the garage of a neighboring house''

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/PIO/oralArguments/11/0302/0302.asp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChR1XcYhlw Rocket video

Bill, don't tell us we need to explain "like" is not equal to "is" to you too

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think that the selected and melted core columns up to around the 88th floor were pumped full of the solely incendiary version of nanothermite.

Solely incendiary? Ehrm, are you imagining that you can melt a few thousand tons of steel in a few minutes with an incendiary without producing a considerable pressure? The you are imagining wrong.

I can't really explain the rockets using that theory.

Which rockets? - Oh, any rockets? - So true.

But it can't be denied.

What?

The piece that flew out to the right changing direction sharply from out to down sure did behave like a rocket. The razor sharp change of direction had nothing to do with the physics we were given.

Which piece? I didn't notice any piece in any of the videos in this thread doing anything like what you describe. Are you talking about some other video? Then I'd like to see it before I discuss it.

PS:.It behaved pretty much like a firework gone wrong in fact.

PPS: '' The first bottle rocket Briggs launched traveled about 20 feet into the air, then made a 90 degree turn and flew into the garage of a neighboring house''

From that, I take it you never experimented with rockets as a kid.

Well, I did, and I can tell you that there are two main obstacles, encountered in the listed order:

1) Achieve sufficient pressure for any kind of lift without blowing up.

2) Make it fly even approximately straight.

The design window for #1 is surprisingly narrow, especially as you will find that weight is a critical parameter: Make it stronger, it gets heavier, requiring even more pressure.

Hans

 

[bill smith]

Solely incendiary? Ehrm, are you imagining that you can melt a few thousand tons of steel in a few minutes with an incendiary without producing a considerable pressure? The you are imagining wrong.



Which rockets? - Oh, any rockets? - So true.



What?



Which piece? I didn't notice any piece in any of the videos in this thread doing anything like what you describe. Are you talking about some other video? Then I'd like to see it before I discuss it.



From that, I take it you never experimented with rockets as a kid.

Well, I did, and I can tell you that there are two main obstacles, encountered in the listed order:

1) Achieve sufficient pressure for any kind of lift without blowing up.

2) Make it fly even approximately straight.

The design window for #1 is surprisingly narrow, especially as you will find that weight is a critical parameter: Make it stronger, it gets heavier, requiring even more pressure.

Hans

The incendiary nanothermite produces only heat Hans. No pressure worth talking about.. Even Msckey wrote about it somewhere. Not in a few minutes either...more like ten seconds or so.Just enough to set up a steady flow downwards of liquid steel in a limited amount of selected core columns. Up to 40% of them I reckon. Enough to allow the building to still remain stable. Call it the 'weakening phase' if you like. It was only for several seconds anyway before the main demolition kicked in.

Have a look at the link I titled 'rocket video' to see the piece I am talking about.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The incendiary nanothermite produces only heat Hans. No pressure worth talking about.. Even Msckey wrote about it somewhere. Not in a few minutes either...more like ten seconds or so.

Reference? How do you produce such enormous amounts of energy without producing pressure?

Just enough to set up a steady flow downwards of liquid steel in a limited amount of selected core columns.

Impossible. Nano-thermite is not chemically different from normal thermite, basically just more fine-grained, which means it burns faster. Both produce large amounts of hot gasses.

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[

"No pressure worth talking about" indeed.

Have a look at the link I titled 'rocket video' to see the piece I am talking about.

That one. Heck, you can even see the part colliding with it. One part is flying out and slightly upwards, another comes steeply upwards, then curves down in a ballistic curve and collides with the other, which changes direction and flies downwards, now trailing dust. Possibly something like that happened to the other fast falling parts, as well.

Hans

 

[bill smith]

Reference? How do you produce such enormous amounts of energy without producing pressure?



Impossible. Nano-thermite is not chemically different from normal thermite, basically just more fine-grained, which means it burns faster. Both produce large amounts of hot gasses.

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite



"No pressure worth talking about" indeed.



That one. Heck, you can even see the part colliding with it. One part is flying out and slightly upwards, another comes steeply upwards, then curves down in a ballistic curve and collides with the other, which changes direction and flies downwards, now trailing dust. Possibly something like that happened to the other fast falling parts, as well.

Hans

Mackey: ''The upshot is that nanothermite can be a high explosive, but this is solely a function of grain size which drives the speed of the flame front. Because it is not a pressure-driven effect, while it can still produce a shockwave, it will be a particularly weak one. Unless packed with some medium that produces a large volumetric change when heated, it is unlikely to create much of an explosion. If so packed, it will be in all likelihood the least energetic explosive known to science.''

PS. There must have been a heck of a lot of dust on the downwards flying part. Wouldn't the dust have already been blown off by the wind ? If so, then it must have been smoke. If smoke then the rocket theory gains ground.