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

[Oystein]

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

Uhm FTFY.

 

[Oystein]

You have a remarkable ability, to turn things around, and drag people down to the lowest possible of detail,

What's wrong with details?

while offering none yourself.

I make no claims here that need an explanation. Truthers do.

You want a theory, here's one.

100 bucks that what follows is not a theory.

Just as before it's high level. Some other force was acting on that object making it accelerate faster then gravity alone explain.

Hahaha Here is The Law of Gravity according to tmd:

"Things fall down because something drags them"​

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.

A theory is not listing things that you believe to not be the explanation, tmd. Is that theory coming anywhere?
TMD, don't tell us what your theory is not, tell us what it is!

It had a white smoke trail to it, much like a wayward firework.

Like firework? So is that firework, or isn't it? Still no theory, only a simile.

Based on these observations it would seem likely that some agent

What's that agent? Cabbage? Lambswool? Alcohol? Can you be a liiittle more specific? Still no theory here.

(that should not have been there)

You have not the slightest clue what it was, but you are sure it should not have been there?? Really??

was causing what we observed.

You'll come back with you usual, well what was this "agent",

Yep.

how did it get there..etc.

Yep.

Not really addressing much of anything,

What should I address? Your theory is "some agent". What's there to be addressed?

or giving any explanation for the behavior that is observed.

Why should I explain anything? I don't have a conclusion like you have ("CD") and I don't believe the premise is true ("acceleration over g"), so why should I provide the Reasoning that connects doubtful premise with nonexistent conclusion?

You, tmd, believe the premise acceleration over g, and you believe the conclusion CD, so you must provide the Reasoning, using established facts, laws of science and logic. A theory that exhausts itself in the two words "some agent" is a little too thin, dontcha think?

 

[Oystein]

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 hilited and formatted the most important word in that post.

Why should we assume that premise? The tower was 415 meters high. The main cloud consisted of objects falling from 400, 350, 300, 250 meters, and that object fell from ... somewhere; we have no idea. Any second object could have fallen from any height between, say, 200m and 415m.

 

[The Almond]

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?

Have you managed to convince the turtles that they're turtles yet? Don't expect much of a result out of the listed group.

 

[Oystein]

[oops wrong thread - deleted]

 

[RedIbis]

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.

I guess I was too quick to commend you for civil behavior.

So here we go again, RedIbis:


*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?

Can't know or doesn't know? I think it's in the realm of possibility for him to know, whether or not he does is not something I can really say.

Harrit is an irresponsible scientist when he makes such claims, wouldn't you say so, RedIbis?

Why are you fixated on Harrit in a thread about Chandler's video? You admitted earlier that Chandler didn't say that nanothermite was the propellant.

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?

At least you're honest. You are essentially saying you don't care what Chandler's video asserts, you're only purpose is to satisfy your ego and prove to yourself that evil twoofies are wrong wrong wrong. I belive that's calling trolling around here.

All that has to be done is show where Chandler is off on his calculations or where his observations are unreliable due to the limitations of the video.

If Dave Rogers could spend his time showing how the distortions he lists have afffected the calculations, instead of disingenuous bluster and an assumption that he's already right and the stupid twoofie is already wrong, something might get done around here.

Please don't be surprised or belligerent when I don't answer your questions. They're rarely fair or relevant, more this kind of frantic whirlwind of fragmented debunkerisms. Take a deep breath, relax and ask me a very straightforward question and I'll do my best to give you a very straightforward answer.

In the mean time, I might ask that the residents here to check this to see what a civil, productive discussion looks like. Amazing that the stupid twoofies don't all agree and might even be providing legitimate criticism of the video.

 

[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

Sure was a lot of interesting flying going on there Hans don't you think ? 'Flying slightly upwards' and 'flying steeply upwards' ..'changing direction' and so on. You don't find that surprising in a solely gravity driven straight-down-to-the-ground collapse ?

 

[The Big Dog]

Why are you fixated on Harrit in a thread about Chandler's video? You admitted earlier that Chandler didn't say that nanothermite was the propellant.

....

In the mean time, I might ask that the residents here to check this to see what a civil, productive discussion looks like. Amazing that the stupid twoofies don't all agree and might even be providing legitimate criticism of the video.

Oh look, Red, asking for peace and understanding.

Just don't ask him to answer any questions.

By the way, I repeatedly showed that Chandler has indeed said that highly energetic material, a/k/a Thermnight, was the cause.

"Neils was right."

 

[ozeco41]

...In the mean time, I might ask that the residents here to check this to see what a civil, productive discussion looks like. Amazing that the stupid twoofies don't all agree and might even be providing legitimate criticism of the video.

An interesting sequence of posts there Red. They seem to have identified the two key issues viz:
1) If the measurements by Chandler are correct:
2) ..there is an interesting phenomenon to explain.

Whilst here we are following our penchant for "noise" AND pursuing the micro details.

As usual forgetting the bigger picture which includes questions such as:

"Who would want to fix rockets to bits of structure?" "How would they do it so the rockets don't get dislodged in collapse?" "How would they get the rockers to disappear so that zero evidence remains?" >>> going further down that path leads to absurdity.

So let's try again "What use of a rocket propellant material could result in it accidentally becoming a rocket on that bit of building?" So a possible by-product of some CD???

If we allow Harrit his nano-thermite we get "Why would nano thermite be associated with the perimeter columns if there had been attempted CD of the towers?" The perimeter columns were not the point of critical failure. Another "go nowhere" track.

Meanwhile I'll wait patiently till someone shows that Chandler's measurements are wrong. Remember his record to date. If he is right on this occasion it will be the first time. So the odds are against him. And the default assumption should be "He is wrong."

And, till then, it remains an unexplained anomaly. There are thousands of them and the lack of explanations proves nothing.

....except that we have no explanation.

...yet!

 

[MIKILLINI]

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

I haven't seen you or Chandler make any attempt to explain or consider other possibilities of what's seen on the video. Chandler presumes the "energy" force propelling the object was caused by nanothermite(He is certain of his theory). You agree with him?

 

[Oystein]

Can't know or doesn't know? I think it's in the realm of possibility for him to know, whether or not he does is not something I can really say.

Good question. Let's see how YOU, RedIbis, answered this earlier in this thread:

He refuses to agree with Harrit's claim of nano-thermite because he's being a responsible scientist simply because he can't know that.

So you think Chandler can't know, but Harrit might know.
What magical skills does Harrit possess and Chandler lack to account for this difference?
So it would be scientifically irresponsible of Chandler to agree with what Harrit said ("n-t at work"), but it wouldn't be scientifically irresponsible of Harrit to say it in the first place?

I think we are seeing typical truther nano-logic at work here.

Why are you fixated on Harrit in a thread about Chandler's video? You admitted earlier that Chandler didn't say that nanothermite was the propellant.

Well, he did tell us that Harrit claims nano-thermite in the video, not? Presumably for a reason, would you not presume? And he starts of his conclusion with the strong words: "Niels is right".

Chandler mentions Niels at least twice in the video, and we are debating the video, so talking about Harrit and what he allegedly said is obviously and fully on-topic here.

At least you're honest. You are essentially saying you don't care what Chandler's video asserts, you're only purpose is to satisfy your ego and prove to yourself that evil twoofies are wrong wrong wrong. I belive that's calling trolling around here.

No. I am proving that truthers have no theory, at least none that they have thought through.

You are adding weight to my assertion with every post you write that fails to tell us what the theory is.

All that has to be done is show where Chandler is off on his calculations or where his observations are unreliable due to the limitations of the video.

Well, yes, that (falsifying the premise) would be one way to debunk Chandler; a sufficient condition to prove his theory (premise: >g acceleration; conclusion: CD using nano-thermite; Reasoning: ...urrr... *chirp chirp*) wrong. I'll happily leave that to others.
There is at least one other avenue, one other sufficient condition to show Chandler is wrong: By pointing out that there is no valid logic, no science, no complete argument that connects conclusion with the premise. This is my approach.

If Dave Rogers could spend his time showing how the distortions he lists have afffected the calculations, instead of disingenuous bluster and an assumption that he's already right and the stupid twoofie is already wrong, something might get done around here.

Dave's avenue is a sufficient, but not a necessary condition to prove Chandler wrong.

Please don't be surprised or belligerent when I don't answer your questions.

No worries, I am certainly not the slightest bit surprised, given your track record of not answering questions.

They're rarely fair or relevant, more this kind of frantic whirlwind of fragmented debunkerisms.

How could there be any whole debunkerism when there is no whole truther theory to be debunked?

Take a deep breath, relax and ask me a very straightforward question and I'll do my best to give you a very straightforward answer.

Easy:
1. Do you agree with Chandler that the object we are talking about here is a wall panel that weighs about 4 tons?
2. Why would the above-g acceleration of some piece of debris be evidence of nano-thermite, or of controlled demolition?

In the mean time, I might ask that the residents here to check this to see what a civil, productive discussion looks like. Amazing that the stupid twoofies don't all agree and might even be providing legitimate criticism of the video.

The best of them, Haze and DavidS, are basically saying the same thing as Dave Rogers

 

[tmd2_1]

I guess I was too quick to commend you for civil behavior.

Can't know or doesn't know? I think it's in the realm of possibility for him to know, whether or not he does is not something I can really say.

Why are you fixated on Harrit in a thread about Chandler's video? You admitted earlier that Chandler didn't say that nanothermite was the propellant.



At least you're honest. You are essentially saying you don't care what Chandler's video asserts, you're only purpose is to satisfy your ego and prove to yourself that evil twoofies are wrong wrong wrong. I belive that's calling trolling around here.

All that has to be done is show where Chandler is off on his calculations or where his observations are unreliable due to the limitations of the video.

If Dave Rogers could spend his time showing how the distortions he lists have afffected the calculations, instead of disingenuous bluster and an assumption that he's already right and the stupid twoofie is already wrong, something might get done around here.

Please don't be surprised or belligerent when I don't answer your questions. They're rarely fair or relevant, more this kind of frantic whirlwind of fragmented debunkerisms. Take a deep breath, relax and ask me a very straightforward question and I'll do my best to give you a very straightforward answer.

In the mean time, I might ask that the residents here to check this to see what a civil, productive discussion looks like. Amazing that the stupid twoofies don't all agree and might even be providing legitimate criticism of the video.

By in large this is all he does. Asks never ending questions, and answers none of his own. Every once in a while he'll get caught with something, and then you just don't hear from him again on a particular thread. I try to not pay much attention to him.

Of course he wants to pay attention to Harrit, it draws attention away from what he can't explain. Nano-thermite being there or not is more ambigious so he focuses on that. It's ridicioulos you have an object which appears to be falling faster than free fall acceleration, and there appears to be no reason for this. Yet he wants us to tell him what it is, how it there...etc. The reason is simple, he wants to draw you into conversations about very specific details, that are much more ambigious, give some reason why it can't be that way (Note he doesn't actually have to be right, he'll just give it anyway) and claim you have no theory so we can't determine much of anything. His game is very apparent.

 

[tmd2_1]

I hilited and formatted the most important word in that post.

Why should we assume that premise? The tower was 415 meters high. The main cloud consisted of objects falling from 400, 350, 300, 250 meters, and that object fell from ... somewhere; we have no idea. Any second object could have fallen from any height between, say, 200m and 415m.

Because any object falling that much sooner would have been observed. If it fell during the cloud it should have never accelerated past that same cloud.

 

[NoahFence]

Because any object falling that much sooner would have been observed. If it fell during the cloud it should have never accelerated past that same cloud.

You honestly have no idea how stupid that sounds? Falling dust versus a giant multi-ton slab of steel?

 

[matt.tansy]

If it fell during the cloud it should have never accelerated past that same cloud.

Yeah, if it was in a vacuum.

 

[GlennB]

...
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.

That's meaningless. "Spring action" may have components acting in both vertical and horizontal planes. Travel in the horizontal plane would not be detected from Chandler's video.

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.

The exterior columns were lined with drywall. Drywall (plasterboard) is insubstantial and can create a huge amount of dust, as anybody who has demolished an old drywall ceiling or partition wall can testify.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sure was a lot of interesting flying going on there Hans don't you think ? 'Flying slightly upwards' and 'flying steeply upwards' ..'changing direction' and so on. You don't find that surprising in a solely gravity driven straight-down-to-the-ground collapse ?

No, I don't. When large structures break up, pieces tend to fly. And you know it.

Small structures, too. Again: Take a coffee mug and drop it on the floor. Do pieces fly all over?

Do I need to explain to you how this can happen?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

In the mean time, I might ask that the residents here to check this to see what a civil, productive discussion looks like. Amazing that the stupid twoofies don't all agree and might even be providing legitimate criticism of the video.

Yeah, like this, you mean?:

Of course we can expect the debunkers to say: "Well if you average the downward motion of that 4 ton segment starting from the time when the tower was first built to Sept 11 2001, its downward acceleration is hardly noticeable and certainly not even close to freefall!"

Very civil and productive, indeed.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Uhm FTFY.

Really?

 

[MRC_Hans]

All that has to be done is show where Chandler is off on his calculations or where his observations are unreliable due to the limitations of the video.

If Dave Rogers could spend his time showing how the distortions he lists have afffected the calculations, instead of disingenuous bluster and an assumption that he's already right and the stupid twoofie is already wrong, something might get done around here.

Why exactly should someone else spend his time on this? There is a well-known number of limitations on what you can measure from a video. Just off my head:

- Timing: Unless you have the raw tape, the frame rate is always questionable.
- Angle distortion: Unless we can somehow deduce the exact trajectory of the object in 3D, we can't know the angle distortion precisely.
- Resolution: The exact position of any detail can only be determined within the resolution of the video.
- Scaling: Even when scaling from known objects, the above limitations apply to scaling.

Sum it up, and the apparent higher than gravity acceleration could easily not exist.

Also, when we have no knowledge of the entire trajectory of a falling object (most of it hidden in the dust plume), we cannot determine its expected speed at any given point.

Finally, as I pointed out to Bill, we can actually observe other objects collide in mid-air. With little knowledge of the shape, density, initial trajectory, and rotation of the objects, their direction and speed after a collision is impossible to guess.

Take a deep breath, relax and ask me a very straightforward question and I'll do my best to give you a very straightforward answer.

OK: Considering my points above, considering the lack of any conceivable reason to attach rockets to random building elements, and considering the improbability that a demolition device could, even through a malfunction, act like a rocket, why do you feel that anybody should spend time on Chandler's video, when mundane explanations to the observations exist?

Hans