This could go to several old threads, or be the start of a new one, but since I liked the smack-down on Chandler the best, I chise this thread.
Major_Tom wrote a very lengthy series of posts over at the911forum, where he takes a close look at several collapse theories for the twin towers, and explains why they are all wrong: Bazant and collaborators, NIST, Ryan Mackey, David Chandler, AE911T.
I didn't read through the first pages, but I must say that Tom has explained the failures and weaknesses of David Chandler's paper (see OP of this thread) as well es the major claims of AE911T better and more comprehensively than anybody else I've read, I recommend that read to everybody interested in debunking these people and understanding how models work. Starting here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/s...he-wtc-collapse-histories-t622-60.html#p18893
To pre-empt the inevitable accusations of truthers: Yes., I was biased when I didn't look at his debunking of Bazant and NIST
Your "it" is not the "it" I discussed. The "it" I discussed was not / is not a physics/engineering problem.
Not so - I simply support the bits he gets right. And attempted to correct him multiple times here on this forum on the big bit he get's wrong. Have abandoned the latter both here and on 911forum.
Not my job - he should be big enough to do it himself. I usually get ballistic untruthful responses when I point out simple truths about bits of his work. If there is a bit of his work that you (or anyone else) don't understand the first call is to ask the man himself - why involve me as a third party.?
Your "it" is not the "it" I discussed. The "it" I discussed was not / is not a physics/engineering problem.
Not so - I simply support the bits he gets right. And attempted to correct him multiple times here on this forum on the big bit he get's wrong. Have abandoned the latter both here and on 911forum.
Not my job - he should be big enough to do it himself. I usually get ballistic untruthful responses when I point out simple truths about bits of his work. If there is a bit of his work that you (or anyone else) don't understand the first call is to ask the man himself - why involve me as a third party.?
His identification of which bits of perimeter fell where is great forensic analysis. Some of the best material I have seen to address the claims that explosive projection was required to "throw" beams hundreds of feet. I am aware of the JREF debunker excuses used to dismiss his work on this aspect. Typically the false global position which has been deployed many times against femr2 and M_T's work - statements such as "since it doesn't change the global finding of planes and fires it is a waste of time". IMO unworthy nonsense. Not surprising those who reject detailed work done by "truthers" don't apply the same standards to debunker work. Recall the months of claims that pure science research without an explicit conspiracy link should not be in the 9/11 sub-forum. That argument has not been directed at discussions of the work chrismohr is coordinating on thermXte analysis. Nor at the current long debate over microspheres.
IMO the conclusion is not well founded. It relates to the one big logical error which I detect in M_T's work and which, as stated previously, I have challenged him on without success both here and on 911Forum. As far as I read it M_T's work demonstrates core collapse and may demonstrate core collapse as leading in time. It does not negate the involvement of perimeter collapse which NIST identifies as the key. In pressing M_T for clarity I have asked point blank for clarification and run into cloudy thinking. So the underlying work looks sound but the conclusions not convincing. But the concepts obviously are in the same ball park as NIST operated in. Where M_T and I break company is that it doesn't change the broad conclusion that the collapse initiation resulted from a number of separate mechanisms contributing to a cascade failure. Of course leaving the options open he runs the risk of being accused of trying to "back in CD" - particularly by those who think that an objective must be stated before you start - see my previous comments.
He is never over my head at the level I have tried to discuss with him but some of the questions I posed were over his. Comprehension of 3 dimensional structural mechanics has always been one of my strong points.
His base detection of movement stuff is probably correct but he runs into this barrier of needing to prove NIST wrong. Does not see his work as complementing NIST and, from there, potentially offering a slightly different explanation. No!!! He has to claim "One little bit wrong therefore NIST is totally garbage" (Or words to that effect which will be familiar to those who have read his contributions here objectively.)
Like femr2's work - mostly sound data measurement and analysis of movements. The caricatures of excuses used to dismiss their work because they are truthers (or were truthers) does little credit to those deploying those criticisms.
And people who can't google "metallurgical analysis wtc steel".
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0711/banovic-0711.html
You are spreading lies. Chandler can't do physics and he is a physics teacher. That is irony. You support idiotic claims made up by liars. You can't answer questions, so you spread lies. You have nothing of intellectual value to add to 911. You are wrong on all counts, like your claims on 911.
This is funny. Your claims are total nonsense. You can't comprehend the FEMA and NIST reports. My parents encouraged me to become an Engineer, I did. Why can't you understand engineering models? Why are you a failure on 911 issues? You should have gone to engineering school, instead of the google up lies about 911 school of perpetual failure.
You are correct, you don't need papers to spread your idiotic fantasy of explosive, you make it up and spread lies. You have delusions on 911, and prove it every chance you get. You post lies from people who can't figure out 911.
WTC 7 fell slowing, starting internally, taking over 18 seconds to collapse. Can't you time things? You have no clue what symmetrically means, most likely due to your avoiding math.
Hearsay, you use hearsay to support your lies of explosives. You need to study simile. Look it up. Try engineering instead of googling.
No explosives were used. The reason the debris field looks that way is summed up by E=mgh. Too bad, you don't do physics, so you can't comprehend 911.
Gage is a liar, he spread lies; means he is a liar. Brush up on your logic. 19 terrorists did 911, and you can't figure it out. 10 years and you failed so you have to make posts like this. Evidence free, full of delusions to support your fantasy explosives. Not one piece of steel has blast evidence. Your mountain of evidence is only found in your fantasy.
