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

[MRC_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.''

And who is Mackey?

Hans

 

[bill smith]

And who is Mackey?

Hans

According to Ron Wieck he's a scientist who works for NIST. Although Ron did hastily correct himself and say that he really meant NASA.

 

[phunk]

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.

Or, there was drywall attached to it, being blown apart by the wind.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Well firstly if a part changes orientation to the air flow it would change the surfaces affected.
Secondly dust will be trapped in the turbulance behind a moving object and only escape over time
Thirdly if the object itself IS the source of the dust then the airflow as it fall will free more dust as it falls and its speed increases.

even if it was smoke...all that means is that something on that part was hot and/or was on fire. Again air flow could rekindle any glowing material and produce smoke. No mystery there either.

Without knowing what the object was and what was attached to it and where it had come from one is unlikely to know exactly what is happening but since there are plenty of reasonable ways for it to happen, inventing unreasonable ones like thermnight rockets is more than a little silly.

 

[bill smith]

Well firstly if a part changes orientation to the air flow it would change the surfaces affected.
Secondly dust will be trapped in the turbulance behind a moving object and only escape over time
Thirdly if the object itself IS the source of the dust then the airflow as it fall will free more dust as it falls and its speed increases.

even if it was smoke...all that means is that something on that part was hot and/or was on fire. Again air flow could rekindle any glowing material and produce smoke. No mystery there either.

Without knowing what the object was and what was attached to it and where it had come from one is unlikely to know exactly what is happening but since there are plenty of reasonable ways for it to happen, inventing unreasonable ones like thermnight rockets is more than a little silly.

I don't think I need add anything to this.

 

[MRC_Hans]

According to Ron Wieck he's a scientist who works for NIST. Although Ron did hastily correct himself and say that he really meant NASA.

Mmm, there is an Elisabeth Mackey working for NIST, and a Ryan Mackey working for NASA. Ryan Mackey has written a debunking of David Griffin.

So the member here, R. Mackey is presumably Ryan. Your quote comes from here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4865245#post4865245

(It would be nice if you provided such references yourself).

Of course, you didn't cite all of his post, which, on the whole, is quite dismissive of your idea.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

It looks like all the other dust. Many of the parts trail large amounts of dust. Are you now claiming that they are ALL rockets?

Many of the building parts would have drywall plates attached to them, disintegrating as it fell.

Hans

 

[tmd2_1]

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.

You have a remarkable ability, to turn things around, and drag people down to the lowest possible of detail, while offering none yourself. You want a theory, here's one. Just as before it's high level. Some other force was acting on that object making it accelerate faster then gravity alone explain. I've explained why it can't be an object falling sooner..etc, do not believe it was a spring action as it was mostly coming straight down. It had a white smoke trail to it, much like a wayward firework. Based on these observations it would seem likely that some agent (that should not have been there) was causing what we observed.

You'll come back with you usual, well what was this "agent", how did it get there..etc. Not really addressing much of anything, or giving any explanation for the behavior that is observed.

 

[tmd2_1]

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

No what I said before explains itself. The main cloud and the object that is falling faster if falling from the same point, the object further down would have had to have fallen 4 to 5 seconds before hand to create that distance.

 

[The Big Dog]

You have a remarkable ability, to turn things around, and drag people down to the lowest possible of detail, while offering none yourself. You want a theory, here's one. Just as before it's high level. Some other force was acting on that object making it accelerate faster then gravity alone explain. I've explained why it can't be an object falling sooner..etc, do not believe it was a spring action as it was mostly coming straight down. It had a white smoke trail to it, much like a wayward firework. Based on these observations it would seem likely that some agent (that should not have been there) was causing what we observed.

You'll come back with you usual, well what was this "agent", how did it get there..etc. Not really addressing much of anything, or giving any explanation for the behavior that is observed.

Well gee, you really gave us something to chew on there! It was some agent that acted in some way. Holy ****, you are on the damn cusp of breaking the inside jobby job!

Just kidding, your speculation is worthless, and Chandler's You Tubey is absolutely garbage.

/I do like how you say that we are not giving an explanation for what is observed though, when your explanation is that some agent acted in some way. I got one thing to say to that, sport: bwhahahahaha!!!!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You have a remarkable ability, to turn things around, and drag people down to the lowest possible of detail, while offering none yourself.

Its twoofers that are asserting thermnight rockets so why we have to go into details of your theory???? In order to be able study the veracity of your claims we need to know exactly what those are.

You want a theory, here's one. Just as before it's high level. Some other force was acting on that object making it accelerate faster then gravity alone explain.

Thats not a theory, thats an observation.

I've explained why it can't be an object falling sooner..etc,

incorrectly as usual but carry on......

do not believe it was a spring action as it was mostly coming straight down.

Belief is worthless if its not based on facts. Lets see your assumptions and show your working.

It had a white smoke trail to it,

Smoke? how do you know its smoke?

much like a wayward firework.

there you go again confusing "like" with "is"

Based on these observations it would seem likely that some agent (that should not have been there) was causing what we observed.

You have to prove what that "agent" is before you can claim it shouldn't be there. And its not what "we" or even you observed, its what Chandler says he observed. Given his track record for being a delusional fool, pardon us for not blindly believing what he says.

You'll come back with you usual, well what was this "agent", how did it get there..etc. Not really addressing much of anything, or giving any explanation for the behavior that is observed.

Whats to address? You haven't shown that there is anything to address yet.

 

[bill smith]

Mmm, there is an Elisabeth Mackey working for NIST, and a Ryan Mackey working for NASA. Ryan Mackey has written a debunking of David Griffin.

So the member here, R. Mackey is presumably Ryan. Your quote comes from here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4865245#post4865245

(It would be nice if you provided such references yourself).

Of course, you didn't cite all of his post, which, on the whole, is quite dismissive of your idea.

Hans

Elizabeth might be Mackey's wife.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Elizabeth might be Mackey's wife.

Or not. "Mackey" gets a million hits on Google. Irrelevant anyhow.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

No what I said before explains itself. The main cloud and the object that is falling faster if falling from the same point, the object further down would have had to have fallen 4 to 5 seconds before hand to create that distance.

I doubt if we can deduce speeds exactly enough from the videos to say that with any authority.

Hans

 

[bill smith]

Or not. "Mackey" gets a million hits on Google. Irrelevant anyhow.

Hans

It would be very interesting if she was though.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

It would be very interesting if she was though.

Why?

 

[bill smith]

Why?

Mackey might be very close to some of the NIST top paople through his wife for instance . He might have special access to the NIST reports that we don't. We can't cut and paste from the NIST reports for instance. You should have a look and see if Mackey cuts and pastes what we can't. Just a thought.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Mackey might be very close to some of the NIST top paople through his wife for instance . He might have special access to the NIST reports that we don't. We can't cut and paste from the NIST reports for instance. You should have a look and see if Mackey cuts and pastes what we can't. Just a thought.

and you think those "mights" are very interesting?

 

[Oystein]

Unsuroprisingly, RedIbis completely ignored questions asked directly of him and repeatedly already, because obviously his answers would make fellow truthers look bad. What an immature behavior.

So here we go again, RedIbis:

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?

 

[bill smith]

and you think those "mights" are very interesting?

I don't think I need the confirmation. I thought you might want to check it out. But whatever floats your boat..