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

[Amelius Brown]

Or an impact from above.

Yes - an impact or a force. Here's an experiment. Set a AA battery upright on the edge of your desk. Push down on it with your finger tip, and while doing that, with your other hand tap the side of the battery so it clears the edge of the desk.

If the battery accelerated faster than gravity, please provide an explanation that requires rocket engines and thermite.

 

[NoahFence]

Can we use a 9 volt instead?

 

[Amelius Brown]

Can we use a 9 volt instead?

As long as it's loaded with thermite.

 

[Oystein]

Really?

Yes, really. The reacttion product of the (nano-)thermite reaction are
- Fe (Iron; melting point: 1538°C, boiling point 2862°C)
- Al₂O₃ (melting point: 2072°C, boiling point 2977°C)

The temperature reached in the thermite reaction is mainly limited by the lowest boiling point of the involved materials. In the case of the Fe2O3+Al reaction, that lowest boiling point is that of Aluminium at 2519°C. Consequently, the reaction products will both enter the liquid, but not the gaseous phase, near 2500°C.

 

[GlennB]

Yes - an impact or a force. Here's an experiment. Set a AA battery upright on the edge of your desk. Push down on it with your finger tip, and while doing that, with your other hand tap the side of the battery so it clears the edge of the desk.

If the battery accelerated faster than gravity, please provide an explanation that requires rocket engines and thermite.

Welcome Amelius Brown and ... bingo.

 

[Stout]

When I watch the video again, the object appears to be a tube shape and according to the narrator it is, but it's coming down on it's side, so to speak. See the last part of the video for the 'close up"

Seems to me, that were that object a piece of perimeter column packed with therminnight and that therminight did somehow manage to act like rocket fuel, the object would slam back into the tower, not accelerate downward.

Maybe the objects aspect had something to do with the change in acceleration.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

When I watch the video again, the object appears to be a tube shape and according to the narrator it is, but it's coming down on it's side, so to speak. See the last part of the video for the 'close up"

Seems to me, that were that object a piece of perimeter column packed with therminnight and that therminight did somehow manage to act like rocket fuel, the object would slam back into the tower, not accelerate downward.

Maybe the objects aspect had something to do with the putative change in acceleration.

FTFY we only have Chandlers word that there is any change.

 

[Oystein]

By the way: Chandlers data has that object accelerating at only 34% of g between t=1.2s and t=1.8s.

Would a massive chunk of perimeter steel fall this slowly?




Also, here is the raw data we see at the 2:00 mark:

t|v
0.4|-35,291
0.6|-35,995
0.8|-37,032
1.0|-38,328
1.2|-39,328
1.4|-39,994
1.6|-40,328
1.8|-41,328
2.0|-44,660
2.2|-47,327
2.4|-48,660
2.6|-50,993
2.8|-52,326

Please take a close look at the digits to the right of the decimal points:
.032 appears once
.291 appears once
.326-8 appears six times
.660 appears twice
.993-5 appears 3 times

It seems like Chandler's software does not nearly achieve the kind of precision suggested by 3 decimal digits, but in fact rounds values to only a few discrete decimals, and all values have an error margin of +/- .166

This would imply that
- At 1.2 s. the true value is in the range -39.167 to -39.493
- At 1.8s, the true value is in the range -41.167 to -41.493
- At 2.2s, the true value is in the range -47.167 to -47.493

So Chandler's raw data has 34% of g between 1.2s and 1.8s, but it could just as well be 40% of g.
And Chandler's raw data has 153% of g between 1.8s and 2.2s, but it could just as well be 145%

 

[bill smith]

That's a big kick at 1.8s.

 

[RedIbis]

By the way: Chandlers data has that object accelerating at only 34% of g between t=1.2s and t=1.8s.

Would a massive chunk of perimeter steel fall this slowly?




Also, here is the raw data we see at the 2:00 mark:

t|v
0.4|-35,291
0.6|-35,995
0.8|-37,032
1.0|-38,328
1.2|-39,328
1.4|-39,994
1.6|-40,328
1.8|-41,328
2.0|-44,660
2.2|-47,327
2.4|-48,660
2.6|-50,993
2.8|-52,326

Please take a close look at the digits to the right of the decimal points:
.032 appears once
.291 appears once
.326-8 appears six times
.660 appears twice
.993-5 appears 3 times

It seems like Chandler's software does not nearly achieve the kind of precision suggested by 3 decimal digits, but in fact rounds values to only a few discrete decimals, and all values have an error margin of +/- .166

This would imply that
- At 1.2 s. the true value is in the range -39.167 to -39.493
- At 1.8s, the true value is in the range -41.167 to -41.493
- At 2.2s, the true value is in the range -47.167 to -47.493

So Chandler's raw data has 34% of g between 1.2s and 1.8s, but it could just as well be 40% of g.
And Chandler's raw data has 153% of g between 1.8s and 2.2s, but it could just as well be 145%

So?

 

[Amelius Brown]

Also, here is the raw data we see at the 2:00 mark:

t|v
0.4|-35,291
0.6|-35,995
0.8|-37,032
1.0|-38,328
1.2|-39,328
1.4|-39,994
1.6|-40,328
1.8|-41,328
2.0|-44,660
2.2|-47,327
2.4|-48,660
2.6|-50,993
2.8|-52,326

What are the units of measure for column v?

Also, you can't see the beam clearly in the first footage because of the distance from the camera. So the marks he made tracing the path were made by following a trail of dust. In the closeup footage from below at the end of his video we can see that the beam is rotating, and the dust is flying off the edges.

This suggests that the data points made following the trail of dust don't reflect the path of the beam's center of gravity, but rather a point rotating around it, which explains changes in both trajectory and velocity [and therefore acceleration].

 

[twinstead]

So the ONLY explanation for this object's motion is a "rocket"?

 

[A W Smith]

nursury school teacher and 911 troll Chandler debunked

What are the units of measure for column v?

Also, you can't see the beam clearly in the first footage because of the distance from the camera. So the marks he made tracing the path were made by following a trail of dust. In the closeup footage from below at the end of his video we can see that the beam is rotating, and the dust is flying off the edges.

This suggests that the data points made following the trail of dust don't reflect the path of the beam's center of gravity, but rather a point rotating around it, which explains changes in both trajectory and velocity [and therefore acceleration].

Exactly!

 

[Amelius Brown]

This suggests that the data points made following the trail of dust don't reflect the path of the beam's center of gravity, but rather a point rotating around it, which explains changes in both trajectory and velocity [and therefore acceleration].

To clarify, I think Mr. Chandler's analysis is not of the center of gravity of a falling beam, but of a plume of dust shifting arbitrarily as that beam tumbles on its way down.

So I should have said "explains the poorly observed supposed changes in both trajectory and velocity".

 

[bill smith]

So did we have a kick that drove the unit from 40% of g to 145% of g in an instant ?

 

[Amelius Brown]

So did we have a kick that drove the unit from 40% of g to 145% of g in an instant ?

No. Here's another experiment: Paint a big spot on the side of one of your car's tires. Now record the car driving past at a constant acceleration.

Now rotate the footage ninety degrees so it look like the car is driving straight down. Send this video to Mr. Chandler and ask him to explain that dot's behavior on the X and Y axes. Be prepared to find out your car is loaded with thermite.

I can't verify this whole 40% and 145% without knowing what the units are on the column V in the data above.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

So did we have a kick that drove the unit from 40% of g to 145% of g in an instant ?

No. You have one edge of a tumbling object doing that.

 

[bill smith]

Still,to jump the gun a little...if the unit did accelerate at anything like that rate we are definitely looking at something that provided a hell of a lot of kick in a real short time. What could provide that kind of kick so fast ?

 

[ozeco41]

Yes - an impact or a force. Here's an experiment. Set a AA battery upright on the edge of your desk. Push down on it with your finger tip, and while doing that, with your other hand tap the side of the battery so it clears the edge of the desk.

If the battery accelerated faster than gravity, please provide an explanation that requires rocket engines and thermite.

Welcome Amelius Brown and ... bingo.

...er. Are you sure we have a correct analogy of what Chandler is claiming? The issue of concern raised by Chandler - whether he is right or wrong with his numbers - is that the acceleration appears to increase to above G during the movement and after any initial impetus has been removed.

So?

...precisely. If the error band is so narrow it does not remove the concern that the mid flight acceleration was significantly over G. Providing Chandlers other bits of measurement technique are OK.

So the ONLY explanation for this object's motion is a "rocket"?

I think that is the status at this time. But I am sure you are aware of the trap - "it must be a rocket because no-one can explain it otherwise". The true situation being "IF there is over G we don't have any explanation at this time." And I would first be concentrating on eliminating that "IF". .

So did we have a kick that drove the unit from 40% of g to 145% of g in an instant ?

I think that is the central point of interest. And I think the answer at this stage is "no" (Edit - don't know what I meant by that bit ) The question becomes "If there was a kick - what caused it?"

 

[ozeco41]

No. You have one edge of a tumbling object doing that.

That is one possible explanation. I would like to see it quantified. Given that the item is short relative to the distances it is falling I am doubtful that spinning could make enough difference.

Bottom line - we need some better measurements OR proof of the status of Chandlers measurements - whether they are correct or not.