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

[leftysergeant]

But this debris was so much faster than the other debris Dash. Did it have a head start or something ?

The engines are the densest part of ther aircraft and it was still applying power after the rest of the aircraft was decelerating.

 

[tfk]

Elaborating on the lack of angular acceleration point above…


Identification of the pertinent object:
If Chandler were competent, he'd clearly identify the object in ALL of its video appearances. Being a high school teacher, he is usually precise about this.

For some reason, in this video, he fails.

In twoofer fashion, he resorts to "implication".

Chandler says this at 2:38 seconds of his video:

The object, by the way, appears from other photographs to be a perimeter wall unit, 30 feet long, 10 feet wide & weighing about 4 tons.

While saying this, he switches to this video footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvw0_i1rGns&t=2m38s

There is one large object trailing a significant smoke trail in this video. This is the element that outpaces the other falling debris, as he identifies it at the start of his analyzed video. And it generally fits his description as an elongated object ("30' long, 10' wide").

Now, Chandler doesn't say explicitly that this is the same falling element in his other analyzed video. He does imply so.

Here are a couple of screen grabs (in time sequence) of that element.

As a reasonable 1st order approximation, consider the CG to be approximately at the geometric center of the object. (Even if it is heterogeneous, the CG must be contained somewhere within the physical extents of the object.)

Notice that the alleged "rocket trail" departs one end of the long object at about a 90° angle from the axis of the object. (Greater than 90° in the last image.)

Therefore, Chandler's "rocket's thrust vector" is acting approximately 90° to the body axis of his rocket.

Controlling a rocket is a very delicate balancing act. It is crucial that the thrust vector pass thru (or extremely close to) the CG of the rocket. Grave consequences for controlled flight ensue if this requirement is violated.

Here are a couple of screen grabs (from this video) of a rocket whose thrust vector is just slightly off of "thru the CG".

This is a Trident missile, sub launched. Without going into elaborate research, it appears to not have external flight control surfaces (fins & vanes), but to depend on thrust vectoring by gimballing of its exhaust nozzle. (Perhaps one of you rocket men could elaborate on the Trident.)

In all of the above images, the thrust plume seems to be very slightly (perhaps about 5°) off angle. View the Youtube link for the impact on flight path.

You'll also note that, in this 4th image ...

… the rocket is perched almost directly above the water spout that it created when it emerged from the ocean about 2 seconds earlier. In other words, over the course of these four images (about 2 seconds, and again at about 4 seconds), it's average (not instantaneous) velocity & acceleration are close zero.

Lesson: off axis rocket impulse is spectacularly inefficient at producing linear acceleration.
___

What's your best guess as to Chandler's awareness of the problems with his claims? I find it difficult to believe he really thinks that this is some kind of rocket - maybe he really is that self-deluded...

I have no clue what Chandler really thinks. It is difficult for me to imagine that he doesn't believe it. If he doubted it, then he would be much wiser to simply not comment. He knows his stuff is going to be reviewed.

I think that the source of the error is the lousy resolution of the video images. Even tho he pays lip service to the effects of error, Chandler seems oblivious to the magnitude of the impact of those errors on calculated velocity & accelerations.

It's similar to someone saying that people are "affected" by the moon's gravity. And that accounts for more crime, higher birth rates, etc. during full moons. It's a form of knowing theory, without knowing numbers. What John Paulos referred to as "innumeracy".

If you don't know the numbers, you don't know squat about the effects.

I also think that this is another example of the mistakes that he made (& continues to make) in his use of the same tools in the analysis of the collapse of WTC7.

He has taken to saying that WTC7 falls "at G for 2.25 seconds". A detailed look at that situation shows that it does nothing of the sort, except in a gross average sense. One can speak of a constant acceleration of WTC7 only because Chandler chose to apply a linear fit to the velocity data, which forces a constant acceleration.

It makes as much sense to say that the rocket shown above hung motionless above the water for 4 seconds until someone decided to blow it up. (No doubt, for some nefarious Illuminati purpose.) On average, the rocket DID hang motionless. The reality is, uh, somewhat different.

It seems to me that Chandler is locked into a camp. Us vs. Them. He seems to view every criticism as politically motivated.

So he has insulated himself (shutting off comments to all of his videos, for example) & surrounded himself with other loonies.

His failings extend beyond the merely technical, to arrogance and more than a touch of persecution complex.

When he started down this path, I pleaded with him to simply take his assertions to a competent, independent structural engineer, and to carefully listen to what that expert said about matters that are clearly outside of Chandler's narrow field of expertise. He refused to think that anyone else might have something enlightening to say that he hadn't already considered.

So, arrogance, paranoia, political agenda, insularity, incompetence, delusions of grandeur…?
Or some combination…?
Or he might simply be a lying a-hole.

At this late date, after all of the vile accusation that he's made, someone else may care about his motivations.

Not me.


tom

 

[tfk]

Hey Lefty,

The engines are the densest part of ther aircraft and it was still applying power after the rest of the aircraft was decelerating.

I think that weight & density are sufficient.

I also think that the instant that they passed thru the impact outer wall, they were FOD'ed into X ton paperweights flying in the general vicinity of the rapidly disassembling rest of the plane.

And for any thrust vector that they might be producing, as shown above, a tumbling engine's thrust averages over a short time (one rotation) to be zero.


tom

 

[bill smith]

Some interesting pictures of falling material in this video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4Fk362Q6OQ&feature=player_embedded

 

[ozeco41]

..In twoofer fashion, he resorts to "implication".

Chandler says this at 2:38 seconds of his video:



While saying this, he switches to this video footage:
....
....
So, arrogance, paranoia, political agenda, insularity, incompetence, delusions of grandeur…?
Or some combination…?
Or he might simply be a lying a-hole.

At this late date, after all of the vile accusation that he's made, someone else may care about his motivations.

Not me.


tom

Good analysis tfk. Well spotted on the switch of objects --- must confess I had not been looking closely.

My focus has been on whether or not someone can prove/disprove his measurements. If he is wrong there is nothing to discuss.

...if he is right then it could get interesting for a few posts till we find out why....

I admit that I switch off as soon as I here "Chandler" - if he is right it would be the first time methinks.

 

[NoahFence]

I don't think it was an engine. That would have had to plough through the perimeter columns and spandrel belt on the right side which would have slowed it right down. Especially seeing that it had just ploughed through the perimater columns and spandrel belt on the other side on the way in.

I hope David Chandler measures to see if it is accelerating or not.

It did slow it down. It wasn't going 500 mph when it exited the building.

You really find the most absurd things to key in on, you know.

 

[bill smith]

Watch the plane go in at 590 mph. Then watch the artifact strreak out the other side. Which looks faster ?

 

[NoahFence]

Watch the plane go in at 590 mph. Then watch the artifact strreak out the other side. Which looks faster ?

The plane - by FAR

 

[TsuDhoNimh]

But this debris was so much faster than the other debris Dash. Did it have a head start or something ?

Nope. It had something better: mass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
In physics, the usual symbol for momentum is a bold p (bold because it is a vector); so this can be written

P= mv

where p is the momentum, m is the mass and v is the velocity.

The engines were far massier than the wings or fuselage, so they went further. It's not that they were faster than the rest of the plan fragments, it's that they slowed down less by the resistance of the air and the buildings.

As for what was there to slow them down, not much. See the attached image of a typical office cube farm.

And seriously, Bill, please go take Physics 101. It explains many things that apparently have you flummoxed.

 

[leftysergeant]

Some interesting pictures of falling material in this video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4Fk362Q6OQ&feature=player_embedded

The idiot who put that up seems not to have noticed that the steel travels no farther out than the gravity-driven dust plume.

FAIL.

 

[leftysergeant]

Watch the plane go in at 590 mph. Then watch the artifact strreak out the other side. Which looks faster ?

A smaller object usually looks faster than a big one.

 

[tfk]

Good analysis tfk. Well spotted on the switch of objects --- must confess I had not been looking closely.

I didn't say that he switched objects. I have no clue where you got that. I didn't say anything close to it.

I presume, without checking (because that's his job & I'm not going to waste my time on lunacy this spectacular), that he did not switch objects. That the object shown at the end of his video is the same one that he analyzed.

My focus has been on whether or not someone can prove/disprove his measurements. If he is wrong there is nothing to discuss.

He IS wrong.

He is wrong, because there is no possible way that he can be right. There is no possible way for that object, detached from all other objects, can be accelerating faster than G.

You'll note that all the other explanations for possible "faster than G" acceleration required that the object still be attached to other members that might be exerting a downward force on the measured object. This object does not meet that requirement.

And this statement ("he can not possibly be right") INCLUDES the insane circumstances of "nanothermite firing off on the object" and even "a running rocket has been somehow physically attached to the object".

Chandler simply does not appreciate how small errors in low resolution position measurements can turn into moderate errors in velocity, and large errors in acceleration.

 

[ozeco41]

I didn't say that he switched objects. I have no clue where you got that. I didn't say anything close to it....

My misread

He IS wrong.

He is wrong, because there is no possible way that he can be right....

Naturally.

You'll note that all the other explanations for possible "faster than G" acceleration required that the object still be attached to other members that might be exerting a downward force on the measured object. This object does not meet that requirement....

Yup - basic physics.

...Chandler simply does not appreciate how small errors in low resolution position measurements can turn into moderate errors in velocity, and large errors in acceleration.

Therein is the guts of his problem. Two orders of questionable differentiation built on dubious positional measurements of small increments.

I was looking for "prove his measurement wrong" without even addressing physics - deluding myself that no truther will accept physics but may listen if the rug is pulled from under his measurments so no need even to argue the physics. Wishful thinking I suppose.

Sorry about the misunderstanding - looking back now I cannot see even why I went into brain fart mode.

 

[R.Mackey]

This is a Trident missile, sub launched. Without going into elaborate research, it appears to not have external flight control surfaces (fins & vanes), but to depend on thrust vectoring by gimballing of its exhaust nozzle. (Perhaps one of you rocket men could elaborate on the Trident.)

Almost all rockets use nozzle gimbals as their primary control effector, Trident included. That Trident, by the way, is about as symmetric and balanced as a man-made object can be. Yup, the odds of a wayward rocket pushing an irregular piece of debris in straight line are not promising.

While we're on the subject, Chandler's idiotic claim also requires this rocket propelled projectile has a thrust of... what, about 0.5 g? Or less?

What's the point of that?

Why is nobody pointing fingers and calling him "COINTELPRO?" The only thing he's doing is giving Truthers an opportunity to look really stupid.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

But this debris was so much faster than the other debris Dash. Did it have a head start or something ?

They simply had a greater mass and/or lower drag coefficient and/or hit less other objects........

Really Bill, how did you miss this stuff at school?

 

[bill smith]

They simply had a greater mass and/or lower drag coefficient and/or hit less other objects........

Really Bill, how did you miss this stuff at school?

What if the smoke producing object that streaked out from the right side of the South Tower in the Scott Meyers video was a piece of the perimeter columns on the impact side ? That might mean that the perimeter columns on that side had been tampered with and were filled with something energetic. I've thought for some time that the columns on the impact side were weakened or replaced with somethiing weaker and lighter to permit the plane to apparently slip seamlessly into the building.

Does anybody know where that falling 4-ton section fell from in relation to the impact hole in the South Tower ?

 

[bill smith]

The idiot who put that up seems not to have noticed that the steel travels no farther out than the gravity-driven dust plume.

FAIL.

he referred to 'free flying heavy sections' and 'free flying missiles a few times' and put that down to two possible causes. Exlosives attached to the steel frames or high explosives not attached to the steel frames. The first one is not so far removed from David Chandler's hypothesis really.

 

[MRC_Hans]

But this debris was so much faster than the other debris Dash. Did it have a head start or something ?

Yes, it travelled 500mph to begin with. When it emerged, it was considerable slowed down, otherwise it would have landed somewhere in Northern Manhattan.

Moist likely engines, undercarriage, or some other of the more dense part of the aircraft.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

What if the smoke producing object that streaked out from the right side of the South Tower in the Scott Meyers video was a piece of the perimeter columns on the impact side ? That might mean that the perimeter columns on that side had been tampered with and were filled with something energetic. I've thought for some time that the columns on the impact side were weakened or replaced with somethiing weaker and lighter to permit the plane to apparently slip seamlessly into the building.

No. The idea is silly. Completely silly, for a number of reasons, I won't bother to list, since you are one of the few who can't see it, and you will ignore it anyway.

Does anybody know where that falling 4-ton section fell from in relation to the impact hole in the South Tower ?

We don't even know if it was a 4 ton section.

Hans

 

[Oystein]

This thread's OP is mildly interesting, giving the thread some potential. Unfortunately, it is tough work to find the few interesting posts between a mass of troll posts and replies to the troll posts.

I want to kindly ask everybody to totally ignore the troll in this thread. Take him on and keep him busy all you like in the uninteresting threads, and help improve the mildly interesting ones! Thanks.