• 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

Marokkaan

Graduate Poster
Marokkaan
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
1,083


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvw0_i1rGns&feature=player_embedded

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. As it fell, however, there was an outburst of white smoke, at which point the projectile changed directions, slightly, and accelerated downward for about a half second at 1.5 times gravity. It then fell back to continued acceleration a little under 1 g.

The acceleration of the projectile is unambiguous proof that very energetic material was applied to the wall unit. What I found particularly surprising is that the ignition of the material in an unconfined space where it was free to expand three dimensionally would provide sufficient thrust due to expanding gasses alone to cause what was probably a 4-ton wall unit to accelerate 50% faster than gravity. The fact that the unit continued to accelerate close to freefall thereafter is an indication of an ongoing thrust capable of largely canceling the effect of air resistance."
 
Last edited:
Either Chandler is off on his calculations or he's on, or perhaps close enough to require closer analysis of the projectiles.

Perhaps this the kind of new analysis that debunkers are always calling for. And perhaps if it is, that discussion can be civil and productive.

I'm genuinely curious. I don't have the knowledge to argue for or against such theories, but I do have the ability to understand the discussion, so I'm interested to hear either why Chandler is off on his calculations or how a gravity driven, naturally occuring (as opposed to CD) collapse could produce the rate of speed of the steel assembly that Chandler calculates.
 
 
Jesus Marokkan. What's wrong with you? Why don't you apply the same skepticism to Chandler that you do for proponents of the "official story".

You are blind.
 
Where's bill "smoke generators at the WTC" smith when you need him? This is much more his speed.
 
I like how its not enough to have tons of thermite melting the towers, its not enough enough for explosives so powerful they can hurl heavy steel around, but they to have rockets launched into it as well. What can happen next I wonder... maybe no one jumped, they were shot by government snipers. They are just as nuts as Judy space beams Wood.
 
Last edited:
Wow just wow.
I have to imagine that aside from things being catapulted, snapped, etc, some objects moved towards the camera before dropping while others didn't. It's also obviously apparent that Mr Dave never played with "dirt bombs" as a kid. I remember how cool it looked when you threw a dry dusty dirt clump and it made a smoke trail like a rocket.

Better view of this "rocket". It's a part of the building trailing dust. (SMH)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA#t=7m12s

You can also see that those things are moving no faster than the debris that follows shortly after (towards the bottom of the building).
 
Last edited:
Wait, not only do we have hush-a-boom brand explosives, now we have Dark NanoThermite Brand Explosives?

Jesus, these people are *********** complete idiots.
 
twinstead said:
Where's bill "smoke generators at the WTC" smith when you need him? This is much more his speed.
Click to expand...

I had assumed that it was only a percentage of the core columns that were pumped full of nanothermite incendiary up to to around the 88th floor, but this looks as though some of the higher perimeter columns were full of the more explosive type of nanothermite. The one that produces copious amounts of gas which you see as 'rocket trails'.
 
Edx said:
I like how its not enough to have tons of thermite melting the towers, its not enough enough for explosives so powerful they can hurl heavy steel around, but they had to have rockets launched into it as well. What can happen next I wonder... maybe no one jumped, they were shot by government snipers.
Click to expand...


Duh! Don't you know the WTC was near indestructable? "They" had to lace it with explosives and therm*te! Not to mention detonate a nuke in the basements, fire rockets at it and finally kill it off with some space beams. ;)


Well there are a few kooks who claim the jumpers were thrown out or even that they were dummies/cgi. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I think it's entirely fitting that:

1) David Chandler is a self-appointed 'expert' speaking for the 9/11 'Truth' movement
2) Marokkaan believes every word Chandler utters

You couldn't ask for a better demonstration of what is fundamentally wrong with 9/11 Truth. No further comment necessary.

I covered the 'rockets' in my two 'disrespectful debunking, not rebuttal' videos a while back. Yes, that's a friendly reference to Chris Mohr....



 
bill smith said:
I had assumed that it was only a percentage of the core columns that were pumped full of nanothermite incendiary up to to around the 88th floor, but this looks as though some of the higher perimeter columns were full of the more explosive type of nanothermite. The one that produces copious amounts of gas which you see as 'rocket trails'.
Click to expand...
Ok now I'm really going to end up peeing myself laughing!
 
RedIbis said:
Either Chandler is off on his calculations or he's on, or perhaps close enough to require closer analysis of the projectiles.

Perhaps this the kind of new analysis that debunkers are always calling for. And perhaps if it is, that discussion can be civil and productive.

I'm genuinely curious. I don't have the knowledge to argue for or against such theories, but I do have the ability to understand the discussion, so I'm interested to hear either why Chandler is off on his calculations or how a gravity driven, naturally occuring (as opposed to CD) collapse could produce the rate of speed of the steel assembly that Chandler calculates.
Click to expand...

You have got to be bloody joking
 
Since when is a high school science teacher an expert on propulsion mechanics, thermite integration into rockets, hell, even structural engineering. I can't believe this guy is allowed to mold the minds of our youth. No wonder our education system is in the *******.
 
funk de fino said:
You have got to be bloody joking
Click to expand...

Indeed.

The freaking video claims "what we are seeing is Nano-Thermite," and Red doesn't question that despite the fact that thermite ignition and burning is bright enough to permenantly damage your retina.

You'd think that truthers would get mad when other truthers make completely idiotic claims like this.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Indeed.

The freaking video claims "what we are seeing is Nano-Thermite," and Red doesn't question that despite the fact that thermite ignition and burning is bright enough to permenantly damage your retina.

You'd think that truthers would get mad when completely idiotic claims like this are made.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point.
 
Edx said:
I like how its not enough to have tons of thermite melting the towers, its not enough enough for explosives so powerful they can hurl heavy steel around, but they to have rockets launched into it as well. What can happen next I wonder... maybe no one jumped, they were shot by government snipers. They are just as nuts as Judy space beams Wood.
Click to expand...

:facepalm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom