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

[Amelius Brown]

Still,to jump the gun a little to skip a couple of important steps ...

IFYP.

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 unit are you, like, talking about?

What could provide that kind of kick so fast ?

If you're talking about the source of the plume of dust, then this is asked and answered: the beam's rotation. But we don't know that it's a "hell of a lot" of anything. Again, what are the units of measure of column V in the table?

 

[alienentity]

Femr2, Femr2, Femr2



Interesting thoughts, Amelius. FYI I'm trying to invoke a certain being who thrives on examining data points. He might have some fun with this stuff.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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 ?

You tell us.........

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Having looked at the video a bit more closely, I suspect that spinning is all that we're looking at here. In the earlier stages of its fall, before the claimed period of acceleration above G, the object appears to be something quite long and narrow, and is spinning as it falls. At the point where greater than G is claimed, it appears to be spinning end over end about a roughly horizontal axis roughly perpendicular to the field of view, and Chandler appears to be basing his measurements on the near end. That alone would be a plausible explanation for the appearance of greater than G acceleration; Chandler is simply not measuring the acceleration of the centre of mass.

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

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.

Having looked at the video a bit more closely, I suspect that spinning is all that we're looking at here. In the earlier stages of its fall, before the claimed period of acceleration above G, the object appears to be something quite long and narrow, and is spinning as it falls. At the point where greater than G is claimed, it appears to be spinning end over end about a roughly horizontal axis roughly perpendicular to the field of view, and Chandler appears to be basing his measurements on the near end. That alone would be a plausible explanation for the appearance of greater than G acceleration; Chandler is simply not measuring the acceleration of the centre of mass.

Dave

I comprehend the mechanics of adding rotation to linear.
My issue is about the proportion of the relative effects. I don't think that the rotation induced DeltaAccel could be sufficient to make the linear accel appear to be over G. Hence my comment:

...Bottom line - we need some better measurements...etc

 

[GlennB]

...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.

True in itself, but from the outset I've been mostly looking at:

David chandler:

"The object (apparently a perimeter wall unit)raced ahead of its neighboring debris, but its acceleration was about 1/3 of gravity. This is an indication that it was kicked downward initially by an explosion, after which the air resistance partially canceled the effect of gravity as it approached terminal velocity.

and been commenting on the origin of this original "sproing" of energy that got the unit "racing ahead".

In retrospect I seem to have missed how acceleration was about 1/3 of gravity might suggest it was kicked downward initially by an explosion in any way (d'uh) but perhaps this is just a brain fart on the part of both Chandler and me?

 

[ozeco41]

True in itself, but from the outset I've been mostly looking at:

David chandler:

"The object (apparently a perimeter wall unit) raced ahead of its neighboring debris, but its acceleration was about 1/3 of gravity. This is an indication that it was kicked downward initially by an explosion, after which the air resistance partially canceled the effect of gravity as it approached terminal velocity.

and been commenting on the origin of this original "sproing" of energy that got the unit "racing ahead".

And that 1/3 G is itself sus - too low?????

Bottom line I think is that we need better measurements before we try to explain or there will be confusion added to confusion.

 

[GlennB]

And that 1/3 G is itself sus - too low?????

Bottom line I think is that we need better measurements before we try to explain or there will be confusion added to confusion.

Certainly Chandler's blobs indicating location of the unit, from frame to frame, seem to be disturbingly large relative to the building.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Bottom line I think is that we need better measurements before we try to explain or there will be confusion added to confusion.

I'm sure you're right. I wonder, though, how much better the measurements are ever going to get, given the resolution of the video. We're pretty much trying to follow a blur across the screen; it's fertile ground for pareidolia.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

You tell us.........

It seems that rocket propulsion is the only candidate. But even rocket proulsion would have a job moving a 4-ton section so quickly and so powerfully from 40%g to 145%g ..

 

[ozeco41]

It seems that rocket propulsion is the only candidate. But even rocket proulsion would have a job moving a 4-ton section so quickly and so powerfully from 40%g to 145%g ..

Given that the more likely candidate is accidental rocket effects as an artefact of some other factor. My money still on measurement error.

 

[Justin39640]

Better view. It's just debris.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA#t=7m12s

There's probably a bunch more videos of this that will show it's clearly not a "rocket".

 

[bill smith]

Given that the more likely candidate is accidental rocket effects as an artefact of some other factor. My money still on measurement error.

This one has me scratching my head. But David Chandler made it plain that he is very convinced and he wouldn't have done that is he wasn't. He knows what to expect if he gets it wrong.

The rocket that shot out to the side in the other video I can give credence to but this 4-ton unit will need more explaining.

 

[Dave Rogers]

He knows what to expect if he gets it wrong.

Let me guess: truthers repeating it for the next ten years anyway?

Dave

 

[Stout]

Better view. It's just debris.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA#t=7m12s

There's probably a bunch more videos of this that will show it's clearly not a "rocket".

Yes, exactly, that same one second of footage is at the end of Chandlers video. Why he put it in there, I'll never know, oops I suppose.

So then wouldn't a therminight rockety thingy be all glowing red and sparkly instead of trailing the same sort of white dust that's evident everywhere else in the clip.

 

[Amelius Brown]

Better view. It's just debris.

There's probably a bunch more videos of this that will show it's clearly not a "rocket".

This.

Even bothering to give this an airchair analysis to the extent that I have is overkill. Just watch the video at regular speed a few times, and what you see is a beam falling to the ground. If anything, the video just beautifully illustrates that the towers didn't free-fall. (Or is towers 1 & 2 freefall no longer part of truther dogma?)

Oh well. It's a nice break from building 7.

 

[alienentity]

Any questions? LOL
Seriously, does anyone see anything like this happening on that beam???? Maybe I need a special pair of 9/11 Truth ConspirOptical Nanothermite-vision goggles to see it..

 

[sheeplesnshills]

It seems that rocket propulsion is the only candidate. But even rocket proulsion would have a job moving a 4-ton section so quickly and so powerfully from 40%g to 145%g ..

Actually its the least likely candidate. Error on chandler part is the most likely candidate, followed (IMO) by a measuring from the the perimeter of a tumbling part, followed by simple buffeting by high wind.

Rockets are simply insane. The is no plausible way for them to occur even if one thinks the buildings were demolished by "them"

 

[sheeplesnshills]

This one has me scratching my head. But David Chandler made it plain that he is very convinced and he wouldn't have done that is he wasn't. He knows what to expect if he gets it wrong.

The rocket that shot out to the side in the other video I can give credence to but this 4-ton unit will need more explaining.

There you go again, accepting Chandlers word as being actually true. In the last part of the video we see both the object and column sections and IMO its smaller. Bill, be skeptical.....

 

[WildCat]

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.