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

[R.Mackey]

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

I wrote a more detailed explanation of the non-explosiveness of nanothermite here, after additional time reading the literature on the stuff and listening to Truther fantasies about it.

I also have no relationship with NIST beyond a handful of e-mails traded with some of its researchers over the years.

Not that it matters. Propulsive devices in WTC 7 is an even stupider concept than explosives. Some ideas are so ridiculous that they preclude intelligent commentary.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Would you like me to wipe Chandler's **** for him while I'm at it?

I have no responsibility to do Chandler's homework for him. At the moment the general consensus among sane people is that there were no nanothermite-powered rockets observed in the collapse of the WTC. If Chandler wants to challenge that consensus, he's the one needs to do the grunt work. At present his calculations have numerous unaddressed sources of possible random and systematic error in them, and his central hypothesis has fatal flaws in it, so his work doesn't meet the minimum standards required for it to be taken seriously. If somebody else wants to obsess over the mechanics of falling objects they're welcome, but I have better ways to spend my time.

And, yes; posting snarky one-liners in response to delusional idealogues is a better way of spending my time than cleaning up Chandler's messes for him.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

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

Well.. I could argue that easily but we would get nowhere.

But suppose the 'rocket' was a oiece of the core or perimeter columns ? They are no more than tubes and packed with nanothermite (the more explosive type with added polymers to create the volumetric effect might be able to mimic a firework rocket. Certainly the piece of column that went out to the right behaved something like a firework rocket gone wrong. Erratic, spewing smoke etc.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I wrote a more detailed explanation of the non-explosiveness of nanothermite here, after additional time reading the literature on the stuff and listening to Truther fantasies about it.

I also have no relationship with NIST beyond a handful of e-mails traded with some of its researchers over the years.

Not that it matters. Propulsive devices in WTC 7 is an even stupider concept than explosives. Some ideas are so ridiculous that they preclude intelligent commentary.

Very interesting, thank you!

I think the stupidity of the concept is attested by the fact that happy amateurs (in this particular field) like myself can easily rip it apart, while specialists like yourself can't even be bothered.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well.. I could argue that easily but we would get nowhere.

You could argue that pieces cannot be expected to to fly during the collapse of a huge building? I'd almost like to see that. ... But then, perhaps not ...

But suppose the 'rocket' was a oiece of the core or perimeter columns ? They are no more than tubes and packed with nanothermite (the more explosive type with added polymers to create the volumetric effect might be able to mimic a firework rocket.

Bill, when in a hole, stop digging. Now, people more knowledgeable in the field than myself have pointed out that ideally, nanothermite does not produce gasses. Fine, that removed one level of insanity from your idea about the thermite filled columns. There are plenty left to be sure. But now you want the gas back, to explain your 'rockets'. So now your melting columns will explode again. That's your problem: You can't have both rockets and discrete melting, sorry.

Certainly the piece of column that went out to the right behaved something like a firework rocket gone wrong. Erratic, spewing smoke etc.

There you go again, making unfounded assertions: You have no idea if it was a piece of column or what it was. And you have no knowledge, and no reason to assume it was smoke; it looks exactly like the other dust.

And it doesn't really behave like a rocket; rockets are notoriously bad at making sharp turns. Also, rockets tend to be spewing more than smoke: If there is any power in a rocket (and it would need that to make a sharp turn), there will be a very noticeable cone of fire coming from the exhaust.

Hans

 

[ozeco41]

...And, yes; posting snarky one-liners in response to delusional idealogues is a better way of spending my time than cleaning up Chandler's messes for him.

Dave

I try to avoid the "snarky one-liners" BUT the apparently increasing level of idiocies is testing my patience.

My current hate object is "why do people respond to trolls" when that is just what the troll is playing for?

A subset or supporting issue is that we keep referring to trolls as truthers. I don't think I've seen a genuine truther here for some time.

[/adrenalinerush]

As for Chandler I think he has dug his trench and there is little hope of recovery.

 

[bill smith]

I try to avoid the "snarky one-liners" BUT the apparently increasing level of idiocies is testing my patience.

My current hate object is "why do people respond to trolls" when that is just what the troll is playing for?

A subset or supporting issue is that we keep referring to trolls as truthers. I don't think I've seen a genuine truther here for some time.

[/adrenalinerush]

As for Chandler I think he has dug his trench and there is little hope of recovery.

Is this a fair description of the jref difference between a Truther and a Troll ?

Truther,n..........def,,[one who researches the Truth sabout 9/11 with an open mind]
Troll,n......(jref).....def,,,[ one who has concluded that 9/11 was an inside job based on his researches]

 

[MRC_Hans]

Is this a fair description of the jref difference between a Truther and a Troll ?

Truther,n..........def,,[one who researches the Truth sabout 9/11 with an open mind]
Troll,n......(jref).....def,,,[ one who has concluded that 9/11 was an inside job based on his researches]

No.

 

[ozeco41]

Is this a fair description of the jref difference between a Truther and a Troll ?

Truther,n..........def,,[one who researches the Truth sabout 9/11 with an open mind]...

...(add on) starting from an initial bias favouring some aspect of conspiratorial activity. I might even let you get away with "Contrast to a 'debunker' who starts from an initial bias opposing any aspect of conspiratorial activity".

...
Troll,n......(jref).....def,,,[ one who has concluded that 9/11 was an inside job based on his researches]

No. Try again. Read a couple of sets of forum rules for hints.

It does not refer to those creatures of Norse mythology which are said to dwell in isolated mountains, rocks, and caves.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

I love it when you make statements that are completely wrong with such confidence. So now that its been pointed out to you the above is incorrect, can you work out why? I'll give you a hint.....you're breathing it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I love it when you make statements that are completely wrong with such confidence. So now that its been pointed out to you the above is incorrect, can you work out why? I'll give you a hint.....you're breathing it.

To be fair, I think that tmd2_1 means that if it did not start before the cloud came out, it could not have accelerated past it.

This is still wrong, but not so absurdly. The collapse zone progresses downwards at a speed considerably slower than a gravity fall, as testified by the large amount of debris that falls free ahead of it. Thus is could be easily overtaken by an object which starts its fall from a point above the collapse zone. As the upper part of the building was disintegrated at a rate no higher than the bottom part (quite possibly slower), it follows that parts could detach from the top part during its progress down. Such parts would start at the descend speed of the top part, gravity accelerate down through the dust cloud, and emerge below the dust at a speed clearly exceeding parts ejected from the crush zone. Which seems to be what we are observing in that video.

Hans

 

[bill smith]

delete

 

[bill smith]

...(add on) starting from an initial bias favouring some aspect of conspiratorial activity. I might even let you get away with "Contrast to a 'debunker' who starts from an initial bias opposing any aspect of conspiratorial activity".


No. Try again. Read a couple of sets of forum rules for hints.

It does not refer to those creatures of Norse mythology which are said to dwell in isolated mountains, rocks, and caves.

No, That's terrorists..

Cave, n.......(jref)...def...[hollow geological formation inhabited by terrorists]

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, That's terrorists..

Cave, n.......(jref)...def...[hollow geological formation inhabited by terrorists]

I see you have backed out of the discussion per se. Wise move.

Hans

 

[bill smith]

I see you have backed out of the discussion per se. Wise move.

Hans

Maybe it's time for another approach.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Maybe it's time for another approach.

Yep. This time, try to think of something that makes sense.

Hans

 

[chrismohr]

I have a technical question about the David Chandler video about the rockets or whatever. By now I assume most of us have seen the two-part debunking of those claims my Alien Entity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzTGMQcXP1Q

When I first saw the Chandler "smoking guns" video and the smoke or dust trails changing direction, I immediately thought of embers in a campfire. Sit too close to the campfire and an ember might "pop" (perhaps caused by trapped air or water expanding) and the ember will shoot out a few feet and singe your knee. Maybe the white smoke could have been, well, smoke from the fire and not dust as Alien Entity claimed in his video. There could be some kind of "ember popping" phenomenon going on with a hot piece of debris?

This is just a hypothesis. Alien Entity talks only of violent shifting winds from the collapsing tower, but just observing Chandler's video it does look like there is something INTERNAL to the smoking debris piece that causes it to shift direction.

Does my hypothesis have any merit?

 

[tmd2_1]

To be fair, I think that tmd2_1 means that if it did not start before the cloud came out, it could not have accelerated past it.

This is still wrong, but not so absurdly. The collapse zone progresses downwards at a speed considerably slower than a gravity fall, as testified by the large amount of debris that falls free ahead of it. Thus is could be easily overtaken by an object which starts its fall from a point above the collapse zone. As the upper part of the building was disintegrated at a rate no higher than the bottom part (quite possibly slower), it follows that parts could detach from the top part during its progress down. Such parts would start at the descend speed of the top part, gravity accelerate down through the dust cloud, and emerge below the dust at a speed clearly exceeding parts ejected from the crush zone. Which seems to be what we are observing in that video.



Hans

That's not exactly what I'm saying. What I am saying is that there was certainly other debris falling correct? It wasn't all dust. That piece would have had to start falling noticeably before anything else to achieve that kind of separation. I could see half a second a second maybe, but not 4 to 5.

 

[OCaptain]

Duh! Don't you know the WTC was near indestructable? "They" had to lace it with explosives and therm*te! Not to mention detonate a nuke in the basements, fire rockets at it and finally kill it off with some space beams.


Well there are a few kooks who claim the jumpers were thrown out or even that they were dummies/cgi.

That's it! You've finally cracked the code! You don't have to pick ONE THEORY to explain 9/11. They're ALL true. It took every damn one to bring down those amazingly powerful indestructible steel structures.

Wow. I have chills... anyone else?

 

[OCaptain]

Is this a fair description of the jref difference between a Truther and a Troll ?

Truther,n..........def,,[one who researches the Truth sabout 9/11 with an open mind]
Troll,n......(jref).....def,,,[ one who has concluded that 9/11 was an inside job based on his researches]

No +1.

A troll on JREF is someone who repeatedly refuses to allow corrections to errors in his/her thinking, continually going over topics that have been settled by documented facts.