• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Amelius Brown said:
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.
Click to expand...



Good job - welcome aboard.
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

Yeah but if you look at the second video the object appears to rotating horizontally and the spinning would not account for the above G acceleration.
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is a fair point, but we don't have data enough to say how much head start it needed. It might have come off the top part immediately after the collapse started.

Or, one of the other scenarios I mentioned: Being actually propelled downwards from the crush zone, or having collided with some other flying debris.

It certainly does not resemble a rocket.

Hans
 
Oystein said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Mackey also explained it. So thermite is ruled out as rocket propellant. This leaves the option that rockets were deliberately attached to building parts, which is even more absurd.

Hans
 
bill smith said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

A mid-air collision with another part.

Since this has already been mentioned a few times, I will repeat it some times, for your benefit:

A mid-air collision with another part.

A mid-air collision with another part.

A mid-air collision with another part.

A mid-air collision with another part.

Hans
 
bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't be naive. ..... Wait, scratch that, I suppose you can't help it.

However, Chandler knows exactly what to expect:

1) His silly acolytes will lap up everything he says. As usual.

2) The few skeptics who still bother will shred it. As usual.

3) The world at large won't even take notice. As usual.

The rocket that shot out to the side in the other video I can give credence to but
Click to expand...

What rocket? There was no rocket.

this 4-ton unit will need more explaining.
Click to expand...

4 ton? How do you know that? did you weigh it? Ahh, Chandler says so. :rolleyes:

And why will it need more explaining? You have already been provided with at least 3 different plausible scenarios, none of which require anything but expectable conditions in a large scale collapse. What more do you want?

Hans
 
Chandler's outdone himself.

The only thing stupider than "rocket acceleration" is "smoke generators".

When the only thing standing between you and "dumbest of all time" is BS, then it's time to serious re-evaluate continuing to consume oxygen & space.

There are at least 5 independent observations that immediately prove that this is light dust trailing off of this object and hanging almost motionless in the air, and not a high velocity jet of gasses that could possibly accelerate it.

Chandler has proven that he is incompetent to wield the very tools that he uses to build his arguments.
 
tfk said:
Chandler's outdone himself.

The only thing stupider than "rocket acceleration" is "smoke generators".

When the only thing standing between you and "dumbest of all time" is BS, then it's time to serious re-evaluate continuing to consume oxygen & space.

There are at least 5 independent observations that immediately prove that this is light dust trailing off of this object and hanging almost motionless in the air, and not a high velocity jet of gasses that could possibly accelerate it.

Chandler has proven that he is incompetent to wield the very tools that he uses to build his arguments.
Click to expand...

Start up a thread on smoke generators T and we can have a closer look at the subject.
 
bill smith said:
Start up a thread on smoke generators T and we can have a closer look at the subject.
Click to expand...
The lets troll forums have lots of smoke generator/firesticks woo going on. Why don't you go join in there?
 
RedIbis said:
So?
Click to expand...

The first part (accelaration at only 1/3 of g) pretty much destroys Chandler's opinion that we are looking at 4 tons of steel.

The second part (pointing out the coarsely grained numerics of his data points) has no implication at that stage; I just pointed it out, maybe others can refine on that or draw conclusions. Maybe not.
Actually, when I started that work, I had expected that the inaccuracy of his numbers would result in a greater error of margin for the acceleration. So what I found probably helps more to confirm than to refute Chandler.
 
Amelius Brown said:
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.
Click to expand...

I should clarify that I deduced SI units from Chandler's interpretation of the data: Top acceleration is just below "15", and he says that't 50% above g; since g=9.805m/s2, that implies he is talking m/s2. Of course, if he totally screwed up and it's actually ft/s2, I can't control that. Sounds very unlikely though. That would mean the object falls at only 10% of g initially; but we know the collapse front was much faster than that.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
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":boggled:
Click to expand...

Two more, or more detailed hypothesis:
a) We are looking at something lighter than steel, perhaps aluminium cladding, that suddenly changes trajectory as it sails down. Chandler doesn't account for changes parallax, if he ever accounted for it in the first place
b) We are looking at two objects that pass each other closely

Also, I wouln't be surprised if Chandler underestimates the distance of the object from the tower wall and thus overestimates velocities and accelerations.
Same overestimate of v and a happens if he underestimates the the lateral component of the fall - the velocity at which the object moves away from the tower.
Unfortunately, we don't have Chandlers work to assess, only the results.

Truthers ought to be asking Chandler to release his work for scrutiny. Some folks at the board that RedIbis linked to basically did so already. Not sure if Chandler responded.
 
Oystein said:
Two more, or more detailed hypothesis:
a) We are looking at something lighter than steel, perhaps aluminium cladding, that suddenly changes trajectory as it sails down. Chandler doesn't account for changes parallax, if he ever accounted for it in the first place
b) We are looking at two objects that pass each other closely

Also, I wouln't be surprised if Chandler underestimates the distance of the object from the tower wall and thus overestimates velocities and accelerations.
Same overestimate of v and a happens if he underestimates the the lateral component of the fall - the velocity at which the object moves away from the tower.
Unfortunately, we don't have Chandlers work to assess, only the results.

Truthers ought to be asking Chandler to release his work for scrutiny. Some folks at the board that RedIbis linked to basically did so already. Not sure if Chandler responded.
Click to expand...

One more, actually:

c) A large building fragment were pushed out horizontally and rotating. It falls apart in the air and smaller parts are flung off it, downwards.

So how many mundane explanations do we have now? Six, I think.

I would say that the claim "it can only be rockets" is thoroughly falsified.

Hans
 
Last edited:
Conservation of momentum:

According to Chandler's thesis...

In order to accelerate a 4 ton object at 0.5g, a very large "mv" is required from the gas jet. For a gas, "m" is low, therefore "v" must be high.

This high-v jet is directed straight upwards, into a giant dispersed cloud of both lightweight dust and heavy girders. If such a jet were truly turned onto such a mix, it would have VERY effectively separated those components, blowing the smoke & dust upwards, producing large clearly visible vortices, & clearly revealing the heavier elements.

No such separation occurred.


QED: No rocket jet.

Idiocy. From a pompous, condescending high school teacher.

Fine example he sets for his kids, eh?!
 
Last edited:
At the end of his presentation, he shows the object from a different, ground perspective. The object is clearly a long, thin, large object with his "rocket jet" emanating from one end, with the jet trailing PERPENDICULAR to the axis of the object. If the thrust of a rocket does not pass thru the CG of the rocket, then it does NOT produce linear acceleration. It produces angular acceleration, turning the "rocket" into a giant, flaming pin-wheel.

The long object shows zero evidence of such an angular acceleration.

QED: the jet is not imparting any impulse to the beam.
 
Last edited:
There's a clip of the plane hitting WTC2. It's a well known one that Major Tom or Femr2 has used and they have a name for it like the (something) video. In that one we see the plane come in from the left and a projectile of some kind whizzes out from the right . Does anybody have a link to that clip ?

Found it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPKBvRScRtY Scott Meyers video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7RMhRIjXV8 Hezarkhani video

Pretty fast, pretty smoky indeed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom