David Chandler Part II

rsalinger · 31st December 2008, 11:53 AM

I saw a new video by David Chandler posted here

at youtube with this identifier /watch?v=XtKLtUiww80

In it he disputes the claim that the 18 stories of WTC7 took 5.4 seconds to collapse. He times it in this version at around 3.9 seconds. It's hard to believe that the NIST would make such a mistake. I noticed that he uses a different video but I can see why exactly that would matter if his statement that he's got floor 29 accurately identified is correct. I'm hoping that some clever geometer can give me an insight as to why this is wrong.

Rgrds-Ross

Cl1mh4224rd · 31st December 2008, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by rsalinger

I noticed that he uses a different video but I can see why exactly that would matter if his statement that he's got floor 29 accurately identified is correct.

His method of identifying the 29th floor is... non-existent.

T.A.M. · 31st December 2008, 12:38 PM

The rub of it: All calculations are made from videos where the bottom half of the collapse cannot be seen, and is estimated. It is all up to interpretation.

I am guessing (with a good degree of certainty) that NIST had a few more videos of the WTC7 collapse then dear mr.chandler.

TAM

boloboffin · 31st December 2008, 12:43 PM

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The Chandler video in our fancy JREF link.

DGM · 31st December 2008, 12:48 PM

Without a side by side comparison of the two videos I'm not sure any conclusion can be made. How do we know the speed (in relation to real time) is accurate in his video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80

T.A.M. · 31st December 2008, 12:50 PM

how do we know he is not making crap up for that matter.

TAM

boloboffin · 31st December 2008, 01:28 PM

Making up crap is my first finding. Chandler uses Gross' hurried description of the NIST measurement to just throw numbers around. He could have gone to the NIST report, p. 600 of the accompanying chapters, and gotten a detailed description of where NIST started and stopped their measurements. But Chandler is a hack.

rsalinger · 31st December 2008, 04:30 PM

Well, I've done further research and I must say that there are some things you could use to refute it. First, can you actually resolve in his video the 7 feet of movement the NIST describes as phase I of the collapse? I don't see how. Second, his measurement technique is different - they use a measure of pixel brightness he is trying to detect actual movement. Third, I don't see how he can tell he has the 29th floor. However, if you leave that aside, he seems to show a much longer freefall than the NIST does. Comments?

boloboffin · 31st December 2008, 04:39 PM

His freefall measurement is a .25 of a second longer than NIST's. It's not that much longer, and probably due to his substandard measuring tools and techniques.

Plus a little pillow for the hack to have some breathing room.

Cl1mh4224rd · 31st December 2008, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by rsalinger

Well, I've done further research and I must say that there are some things you could use to refute it. First, can you actually resolve in his video the 7 feet of movement the NIST describes as phase I of the collapse? I don't see how. Second, his measurement technique is different - they use a measure of pixel brightness he is trying to detect actual movement. Third, I don't see how he can tell he has the 29th floor. However, if you leave that aside, he seems to show a much longer freefall than the NIST does. Comments?

I don't get it... If his methodology is flawed, what's the point in ignoring that and commenting on his conclusion instead? Are you working on the assumption that his conclusion is correct despite the flaws in his methods?

rsalinger · 31st December 2008, 08:13 PM

No, my intuition was that there's some obvious flaw beyond simple measurement error in his analysis and I'd like to have that in my repertoire when people bring it up. I guess I'll just stick with the problem of identifying the 29th floor accurately, the use of a different video, the only seven feet of movement, and the use of a different and less accurate measurement for movement (NIST pixel brightness versus being able to see the top move down at least one line in the video). I figured someone over here might have something I hadn't thought of.

Rgrds-Ross

boloboffin · 31st December 2008, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by rsalinger

No, my intuition was that there's some obvious flaw beyond simple measurement error in his analysis and I'd like to have that in my repertoire when people bring it up. I guess I'll just stick with the problem of identifying the 29th floor accurately, the use of a different video, the only seven feet of movement, and the use of a different and less accurate measurement for movement (NIST pixel brightness versus being able to see the top move down at least one line in the video). I figured someone over here might have something I hadn't thought of.

Rgrds-Ross

Your repertoire? You don't need a repertoire. Just stick to the truth.

T.A.M. · 1st January 2009, 05:29 AM

Not to mention, we are watching a VIDEO where he is ALLEGEDLY counting out the frames ONE BY ONE, yet is he really. I mean there is no movement in dozens of frames he is allegedly counting, but if there is no movement in the frames, how do we know that each alleged frame he is counting is one frame.

Beyond that, if we give him the benefit of the doubt on that one, his start and finish times are completely off the map.

TAM

Bell · 1st January 2009, 06:00 AM

Is Chandler using a copy of the original video, or is he using a YouTube video?

boloboffin · 2nd January 2009, 09:52 AM

Chandler's Part III:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

More hackery, more lies, more self-congratulatory BS.

rsalinger · 2nd January 2009, 10:51 AM

Personally I thought it was amazing to simply distort what's in the report and claim it as facts. This seems to be the MO of these people. I particularly liked the idea that since the model mimics what's seen it must have been manipulated until it did no matter how absurd the assumptions. Or that they've hidden their data as if he had a computer that could even run such a simulation if he had the data, etc. When you look closely at the video, you can see very clearly the sky behind the top floor just before the whole thing comes down. You can see that it's unsupported. He also tries to make the point that free fall can only occur with NO resistance whereas they've actually simply fitted a line to the data which shows within limits that it fell as "essentially" free fall. Finally, his line is his graph is clearly incorrect - all the points fall on one side of the fitted line.

boloboffin · 2nd January 2009, 06:03 PM

David Chandler has a website.

http://911speakout.org/

David Chandler has a "Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job (pdf)" essay at this website.

David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence. Examples:

Quote:

In addition to the massive waves of ejections, there are many photographs and videos showing individual "spurts" of material many floors below the point of collapse, identified by experts familiar with demolitions as "squibs," which are commonly seen during controlled demolitions.

...The jet fuel would have burned off within the first ten minutes. In the case of the South Tower, most of the fuel burned up in a fireball outside the building. The fires in the buildings, beyond the first few minutes, were essentially office fires, and not very large ones at that.

Even if the flames were maximally hot, the large mass of steel would wick away the heat energy and not raise the steel temperature sufficiently, especially since the duration of the fires was only on the order of an hour.

Edited by chillzero:

Trimmed for Rule 4.

Woo, doggy.

WilliamSeger · 2nd January 2009, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Bell

Is Chandler using a copy of the original video, or is he using a YouTube video?

That was my first question, too, and I can't seem to find any description on his blog of what he's using, exactly. In addition to questions about whether the video resolution really supports the kind of accuracy he's claiming, if it's any kind of compressed video with MPEG-2 type "temporal compression" (i.e. I-frames and "predicted" P-frames), then his analysis is going to be faulty: At that low resolution, the initial movement could easily be below the difference threshold used by the compression algorithm. You would definitely need a version that doesn't have any temporal compression to do this kind of analysis, and I can't find any suitable version online. But Chandler doesn't even mention this potential problem, which makes me suspect he isn't aware of it.

But one big difference is that he measured points on the northeast corner, whereas NIST's measurements were taken from a point near the middle of the roof. Chandler just blows that off by claiming, "The fact that the roof stayed level shows the building was in free-fall across the entire width." That's certainly NOT a "fact.": All videos show a kink in the roofline; Chandler's "stayed level" claim is simply disingenuous.

I also can't find any description of how Chandler determined vertical distances. I know that in his first analysis, he took a horizontal distance -- the width of the building -- and (incorrectly) assumed that vertical distances would be similar, without accounting for possible perspective effects and pixel aspect ratios (i.e. video pixels are not necessarily square). He puts an arrow on a point and asserts that it's the 29th floor, works backwards from there, and claims that NIST dishonestly stated a starting time to make the analysis agree with their model. Considering the seriousness of that accusation, I would think he would put a little more effort into explaining how he determined that was the 29th floor.

It seems to me that Chandler has figured out that if the collapse started slowly, then the CD hypothesis doesn't really make any sense, so he's decided he needs to attack that slow start.

Bell · 2nd January 2009, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by boloboffin

David Chandler has a website.

http://911speakout.org/

David Chandler has a "Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job (pdf)" essay at this website.

David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence. Examples:

Woo, doggy.

Bolo, you meant to post this 7 years ago, did you?

davidschandler48 · 2nd January 2009, 09:19 PM

This is David Chandler speaking. You guys are off the charts in throwing around ad hominems with no evidence whatsoever. I have no intention of carrying on a running dialog here, but at least I can set some of the facts straight.

Methodology: I used a high resolution version of the video. The window spacing is barely visible in the originals, but I enlarged a freeze frame, enhanced it to show the periodicity of the window spacing, and used a geometry tool that enabled me to get an accurate identification of the 29th floor. If you go to the document, not the botched verbal statements of Sunder and Gross, it is clear they used the roofline and the 29th floor: actually the top of the windows of the 29th floor. They give the heights of those two points to a resolution of a few inches. Before you conclude I blew it somewhere, note that NIST in their re-analysis agrees with my results. I can't be that far off.

The 3.9 seconds is NIST's calculation for ideal freefall between the two elevations mentioned. It is correct. It is also a good estimate of the actual time of fall, which they artificially stretch out to 5.4 seconds.

The 5.4 seconds has no basis in anything other than the need to get a measurement that agrees with NIST's model. This is the point of this video analysis in Part II. The end point is easily identified. The start point has no basis in anything.

----------------

"His method of identifying the 29th floor is... non-existent." -- just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you're right.

"I am guessing (with a good degree of certainty) that NIST had a few more videos of the WTC7 collapse then dear mr.chandler." -- I have access to more videos than you may think. And by the way, why should NIST's data not be publicly accessible anyway? Isn't that our tax dollars at work? ... and by the way, I'm not dear to you, so don't say I am.

"how do we know he is not making crap up for that matter." -- Because I'm standing behind my measurements and putting my name on the line ... you're not even standing behind your own pot shots, whoever you are, TAM

"Making up crap is my first finding. Chandler uses Gross' hurried description of the NIST measurement to just throw numbers around. He could have gone to the NIST report, p. 600 of the accompanying chapters, and gotten a detailed description of where NIST started and stopped their measurements. But Chandler is a hack." -- I obviously DID get the data from NIST documents. I stated that in my earlier videos. You might want to check them out. I go through the methodology questions there. If I were making things up, NIST would have shot me down or ignored me rather than changing their tune on freefall.

"His freefall measurement is a .25 of a second longer than NIST's. It's not that much longer, and probably due to his substandard measuring tools and techniques. Plus a little pillow for the hack to have some breathing room." -- You obviously don't understand issues of uncertainty in measurement data. Also, I am using the corner of the building and NIST is using a point midway along the roofline. Some of the variation comes from the initial sagging of their measurement point. By the way, I have yet to call any of you guys hacks. Is this your idea of keeping things on the level of a rational intellectual discussion?

"Not to mention, we are watching a VIDEO where he is ALLEGEDLY counting out the frames ONE BY ONE, yet is he really. I mean there is no movement in dozens of frames he is allegedly counting, but if there is no movement in the frames, how do we know that each alleged frame he is counting is one frame." -- You can tell I'm stepping frames by the motion of the smoke. That's about all that moves, and tha'ts the point. If you don't believe I'm being straight, do the work yourself. All I've seen here is Monday night quarterbacking. Show me some of your expertise.

"Chandler's Part III: More hackery, more lies, more self-congratulatory BS." -- Where's the beef? ...talk about self-congratulatory...

"I particularly liked the idea that since the model mimics what's seen it must have been manipulated until it did no matter how absurd the assumptions. Or that they've hidden their data as if he had a computer that could even run such a simulation if he had the data, etc." -- The method of modeling the collapse is explicitly a matter of tweaking the inputs to see what it takes to get something that looks like the desired output. How do you know what their assumptions are or whether or not they are realistic? And even if they COULD model the collapse, which they obviously can't (5.4 seconds vs. 3.9), that doesn't mean that's how it happened. Is taking NIST on faith your idea of being a "skeptic"? And yes, there are people associated with AE911Truth that could run the models if they were made available.

...by the way, I get the definite impression from this whole forum that waving the flag is your idea of being intellectually cool, and anyone who would question whether the murdering thugs who did the 9/11 thing might have been Americans rather than Arabs is obviously a fool. Oklahoma City was obviously an Arab thing, right? That's what the media said initially, and that's what everyone was ready to buy into, but it just wasn't so.

"David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence." -- That's an unsupported gratuitous accusation.
"Woo, doggy" -- Oh, is that you're reasoning?

"All videos show a kink in the roofline; Chandler's 'stayed level' claim is simply disingenuous." -- The kink moves down with the same acceleration as the rest of the building. I acknowledged there are small variations between their data and mine, but the acceleration they get is the same. You guys are all missing the point: NIST agrees with me. At this stage the accuracy of my measurements is a moot point.

"I also can't find any description of how Chandler determined vertical distances." -- Check out my earlier video that goes into the Freefall measurement in detail.

"I know that in his first analysis, he took a horizontal distance -- the width of the building -- and (incorrectly) assumed that vertical distances would be similar, without accounting for possible perspective effects and pixel aspect ratios (i.e. video pixels are not necessarily square)." -- I did in fact consider that question and concluded the pixels are square. Note the roundness of the CBS logo, for example. It has equal numbers of pixels each way. The main reason I rejected the horizontal calibration measurement was the smokyness of the left edge of the building. Look at my way earlier version of the measurement. I had to bracket the calibration. That doesn't mean I was unaware of the problem. It means I recognized the need to compensate to do the best with the data I had at the time. All of them produced reasonably consistent results, but when the NIST measurement data was published I was able to do a new version with improved reliability. I expected it might show me something definitively less than g, but I was wrong. It zeroed in on g with more precision than I had anticipated. NIST nails their number dead on g. Do you believe them and still think I'm all wet?

"David Chandler has a website.... (I guess I can't even quote the site by your forum rules)
David Chandler has a "Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job (pdf)" essay at this website." -- That's right. I let people know exactly why I believe the way I do. Where are you blogs explaining why Arab terrorism makes so much sense to you? All I see here is a bunch of think-alikes talking to themselves.

"David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence. Examples:

Woo, doggy. " -- Examples? Examples? Woo doggy!

This forum is pathetic.

Bell · 2nd January 2009, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by davidschandler48

This forum is pathetic.

Then don't post here.

'kay. Thanks. Bye!

Cl1mh4224rd · 2nd January 2009, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by davidschandler48

"His method of identifying the 29th floor is... non-existent." -- just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you're right.

But you didn't say anything about it that could or could not be understood. Maybe I missed something in the video or elsewhere, but all you said, basically, was "the top of this building lines up with the 29th floor of WTC7."

If you're using a different video than the one NIST used, how did you determine that?

Bell · 2nd January 2009, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by davidschandler48

Apparently I can't leave links when I'm new to the forum, and I don't plan to hang around this forum after this post, but I just wanted to point out to you guys that your argument is now not with me but with NIST.

So, you didn't plan to hang around this forum, but somehow managed to read this thread and post in it

boloboffin · 2nd January 2009, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by davidschandler48

This is David Chandler speaking.

Oh, excellent. I'll just pick out the places where you responded to me.

Quote:

"Making up crap is my first finding. Chandler uses Gross' hurried description of the NIST measurement to just throw numbers around. He could have gone to the NIST report, p. 600 of the accompanying chapters, and gotten a detailed description of where NIST started and stopped their measurements. But Chandler is a hack." -- I obviously DID get the data from NIST documents. I stated that in my earlier videos. You might want to check them out. I go through the methodology questions there. If I were making things up, NIST would have shot me down or ignored me rather than changing their tune on freefall.

Mr. Chandler, in your second video, the one that I am commenting on, you only use the hurried definition given by Gross for your purposes. Again, you manage to misrepresent what's being said to justify yourself.

Quote:

"His freefall measurement is a .25 of a second longer than NIST's. It's not that much longer, and probably due to his substandard measuring tools and techniques. Plus a little pillow for the hack to have some breathing room." -- You obviously don't understand issues of uncertainty in measurement data. Also, I am using the corner of the building and NIST is using a point midway along the roofline. Some of the variation comes from the initial sagging of their measurement point. By the way, I have yet to call any of you guys hacks. Is this your idea of keeping things on the level of a rational intellectual discussion?

I call you a hack because you are a hack. As you well know, your third video actually measures almost exactly the same amount of time as NIST for the period of freefall, which makes the comment I was responding to even more wrong. However, neither I nor the earlier commenter had the benefit of having seen the third video -- since you hadn't released it yet. You HAD released it when you posted this. Yet another example of your hackery.

Quote:

"Chandler's Part III: More hackery, more lies, more self-congratulatory BS." -- Where's the beef? ...talk about self-congratulatory...

How is anything there of mine self-congratulatory? Perhaps you don't understand the term.

Quote:

"David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence." -- That's an unsupported gratuitous accusation.

I provided several examples of your lying about 9/11 evidence. One of the more egregious ones is where you claim that Silverstein admited to he and the fired commander making the decision to demolish Building 7. That, sir, is a LIE. And that's not even playing around with the definition of "pull." Silverstein quite clearly says that THEY made the decision to pull. He expressly excludes himself from the decision making. You have LIED.

Deal with it.

Quote:

"Woo, doggy" -- Oh, is that you're reasoning?

No, that's not my reasoning. That's my judgment on the matter. It's my opinion, shared among many people who also understand the fraud you are perpetuating with your videos. You are not at a AE911Truth backslapping forum here. We know how wrong you are and the lies that you are telling about this event.

Quote:

"David Chandler has a website.... (I guess I can't even quote the site by your forum rules)

You have to have 15 posts before you can post links or even quote them.

Quote:

David Chandler has a "Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job (pdf)" essay at this website." -- That's right. I let people know exactly why I believe the way I do. Where are you blogs explaining why Arab terrorism makes so much sense to you? All I see here is a bunch of think-alikes talking to themselves.

Let me get this straight. You are denying any existence of terrorism by Arabs whatsoever? Is that your final answer?

Quote:

"David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence. Examples:

Woo, doggy. " -- Examples? Examples? Woo doggy!

So right you had to quote me twice. Yes, those are example of your lies, your deceit, your wrongheadness, and your tendency toward all things woo. If you don't like this, the remedy lies in yourself.

beachnut · 2nd January 2009, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by davidschandler48

Oklahoma City was obviously an Arab thing, right? That's what the media said initially, and that's what everyone was ready to buy into, but it just wasn't so.

...

This forum is pathetic.

If you are saying WTC7 did not collapse due to fire, your work is complete junk.

OKC, in days we knew it was not Arab's, only a fool jumps to conclusions and make up idiot ideas like WTC7 was CD. 7 years, now you do it by choice? You choose to make up stupid ideas?

19 terrorists did 9/11, it is a fact. Prove otherwise you would have a Pulitzer Prize, but too bad you have no evidence for 7 years, for something that would take months, not years. It is year 7 and if you believe anything other than 19 terrorists you are as good as a Bigfoot believer.

So what happen to WTC7 in one sentence, do you have summary? Do you have some nut case idea?

...
Oops, you are a “9/11 was an inside job” nut case idea guy. Good for you! This is the place for you to post your tripe if it is new. Oops, your paper has JFK woo junk too. Never include off topic real stupid in a real stupid paper, it detracts from the purpose and overall theme.

Welcome to JREF - even though you have no evidence to support your inside job ideas. Welcome to JREF

JFK was killed by one man and has nothing to do with 9/11. Keep your CTs separate.

Quote:

Steven Jones and others has established that there were very high temperatures present in the building, not just enough to weaken steel, but to melt it. He has found evidence for Thermate (Thermite + accelerant), …

This is in your paper.
Jones made up thermite 4 years after 9/11; you are gullible. Jones has no evidence; he is still looking for it.

boloboffin · 2nd January 2009, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by Bell

Bolo, you meant to post this 7 years ago, did you?

What? He's been posting 9/11 CT woo for seven years now?

Well, how about that?

WilliamSeger · 2nd January 2009, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by davidschandler48

Methodology: I used a high resolution version of the video.

I can't find any version of that video has resolution sufficient to identify the windows, so perhaps you could be so kind as to provide your version for independent confirmation. Also, as I pointed out, whether you used an MPEG-2 compressed video or a duplicate of the original (with all frames intact) is an issue with regards to the "sudden onset of free-fall," independent of resolution, and it may explain why you can't find NIST's starting point, if they used a duplicate of the original.

Speaking of which, your previous analysis showed a period of slow descent, with some velocity but little or no acceleration, whereas NIST's data showed a similar period but with slow acceleration. Your current analysis seems more ambiguous, and since you don't really say anything about that period (other than the "sudden onset" claim), I can't tell what you are now claiming about the initial slow descent that NIST's analysis shows. Was the building descending slowly at first or not? If it was, that's obviously a difficult thing to explain with a controlled demolition, unless you hypothesize that the plotters found a way to initiate a slow collapse, like a progressive collapse, but then decided to blow out the columns on 8 floors (even though the building was already headed down).

And of course, you still have the difficulty of explaining the most obvious problem with WTC7 controlled demolition theories (only more so, really): What kind of explosives did they use that could "instantaneously" destroy the columns on 8 floors, yet not produce the explosive noise and seismic disturbances that are seen with controlled demolitions involving only one or two floors exploded?

And speaking of just the free-fall period, I don't accept your assertion that the only explanation is that the columns were blown out. If the columns were buckled to the point of failure during that first second or so of slow descent, how much resistance would they have presented to the falling top section, and is the analysis sensitive enough to detect that resistance? And if the columns were actually being pulled inward by the collapsing floors on that level, why would they need any additional energy from the falling top section?

(Edit to add: Your analysis of the Zapruder film doesn't inspire much confidence. Perhaps you should take a much closer look at that some day.)

UNLoVedRebel · 2nd January 2009, 10:34 PM

Chandler, here is footage of inside WTC 7 on 9/11. Why don't we see the "cutter charges" you predicted would be there? I asked another poster this. The silence was deafening.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Bell · 3rd January 2009, 05:04 AM

Originally Posted by boloboffin

What? He's been posting 9/11 CT woo for seven years now?

Well, how about that?

It's more a case that all those claims have long been debunked. But that's the truth movement for you.

boloboffin · 3rd January 2009, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Bell

It's more a case that all those claims have long been debunked. But that's the truth movement for you.

Oh, I see. Yes, that's one of the facepalm moments about it. The only new thing Chandler has (the measurement of the freefall period) is something that verifies NIST's model of the collapse. Everything else is SSDT.

T.A.M. · 3rd January 2009, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by davidschandler48

This forum is pathetic.

No sir, you and your ilk are pathetic. 7 years out from that horrible tragedy, with allegedly proof positive it was an inside job, and what have you all done...*********** SQUAT!!

You wander around internet forums defending the crap you want to call science and analysis, when in fact it is nothing like legitimate science and investigative analysis.

You have had seven years, you, and the others who profess to know the real truth about 911, and you have not done anything at all with it. Sitting on the proof positive that 3000 innocent americans were killed by their own government. Allegedly 100s of thousands of you, and all you can manage is a few hundred dollars here and there, a few hundred at GZ on the 5th anniversary, a bunch of pathetic websites dedicated to your 15 minutes of fame. A few publishings, by the most famous of you, in pseudo journals where you have to pay to be published.

No sir, it is not a few dozen concerned citizens of the world, who post here to reveal the snake oil for what it is, that are pathetic. It is the alleged thousands of people in the truth movement that have sat back in their computer chairs, and done nothing more than investigoogle for their cause, that are the pathetic ones.

You wanna impress people, get on TV with your evidence. Get before politicians with your evidence.

But that wont happen. You will say it is because the man keeps you from doing so, but we know the real reason...your movement has NO PROOF, just speculation and accusation.

Pathetic.

TAM

roundhead · 3rd January 2009, 11:15 AM

Thanks David, for coming on here and sharing your explanations on this forum.

Much appreciated

It is noteworthy you do it in an adult like fashion, in spite of childish blabbering by many of the folks here, who much prefer hurling insults than actually addressing pertinent points.

Sadly, that is the way it generally works here.

Signed,

An unremovable rock in the shoe

DGM · 3rd January 2009, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by roundhead

Thanks David, for coming on here and sharing your explanations on this forum.

Much appreciated

It is noteworthy you do it in an adult like fashion, in spite of childish blabbering by many of the folks here, who much prefer hurling insults than actually addressing pertinent points.

Sadly, that is the way it generally works here.

Signed,

An unremovable rock in the shoe

You do know that here in the US we throw shoes away that are worn out? Time to step up to the plate and actually make a stand and present you evidence. Your ('truthers") act is getting stale.

T.A.M. · 3rd January 2009, 11:30 AM

1. If you don't like the way the forums work, or how the posters post, then (A) complain to the mods, or (B) leave. No one is making you stay. Now I realize, not only from your "rock" comment, but from your behavior, that you enjoy trolling, and generally ****-disturbing, round head, but you are commenting on juvenile behaviour, yet acting like a childlike troll yourself.

2. There are no pertinent points, except in the minds of the delusionally paranoid, and scientifically illiterate.

TAM

GregoryUrich · 3rd January 2009, 05:44 PM

Dr. Greening has used NIST's own equations to show that portions of the fall were FASTER than freefall (in accord with NIST's equations anyway).

Go to

stateofgrace · 3rd January 2009, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by GregoryUrich

Dr. Greening has used NIST's own equations to show that portions of the fall were FASTER than freefall (in accord with NIST's equations anyway).

Go to

But didn't he also say this

Quote:

"I think David Chandler has done some good work with his little video but I do have one complaint. This is with his selection of t(zero). Even looking at the velocity plot he displays in his video I would move his t(zero) cursor a tad to the left which would slow his acceleration significantly ......

This has prompted me to do some sensitivity tests on some of my own collapse plots. I have taken one of my "best efforts", which generates a very smooth curve, and looked at the effect of shifting t(zero) by just 0.1 seconds. When I do this I get these two curves:

The original plot fits to:

Drop = -0.077t^3 + 4.8433t^2 -0.2123 t + 0.0669

And the plot shifted by 0.1 seconds gives:

Drop = -0.0176t^3 + 4.4721t^2 - 0.5854t + 0.0034

Hence for the acceleration, by double differentiation, we have:

Original plot:

Accel = 9.6866 - 0.462t

Plot shifted by 0.1 seconds:

Accel = 8.9442 - 0.1056t

Thus we see a marked change in the calculated acceleration for just a 0.1 second shift. This is why I have argued that the measured acceleration is about 9.2 +/- 0.6 m/s^2.

This means the collapse of WTC 7 is still VERY fast, and WAY FASTER than NIST says, but certainly NOT at free fall!" Dr. G

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/da...wtc-7-t79.html
?

GregoryUrich · 3rd January 2009, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by stateofgrace

But didn't he also say this

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/da...wtc-7-t79.html
?

Dr. G, One White Eye and Einsteen have done some pretty careful analysis and while I haven't been following the details, I'm inclined to trust their work. They tend to acknowledge the limitations of their methods and are open to criticism.

Nonetheless, NIST still says it fell faster than freefall. No problem with that?

stateofgrace · 3rd January 2009, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by GregoryUrich

Dr. G, One White Eye and Einsteen have done some pretty careful analysis and while I haven't been following the details, I'm inclined to trust their work. They tend to acknowledge the limitations of their methods and are open to criticism.

Nonetheless, NIST still says it fell faster than freefall. No problem with that?

No problem at all, should I have?

Do you?

I take it when you say "portions" you are now referring to the entire building? No problem with that?

GregoryUrich · 3rd January 2009, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by stateofgrace

No problem at all, should I have?

Do you?

I take it when you say "portions" you are now referring to the entire building? No problem with that?

The entire building above the point of collapse. The acceleration varied over the duration of the fall and for a period of around 1 sec the acceleration was greater than freefall.

Yes I have a problem with that. It means that NIST has presented a bogus equation because there is no way to physically account for an acceleration greater than freefall. Along with the other problems that Dr. Greening has pointed out, the report is essentially shown to be bunk.

I would think that any skeptic would be apalled at this sort of erroneous psuedo-science.

Cl1mh4224rd · 3rd January 2009, 06:47 PM

Isn't that sort of thing possible by plugging bogus numbers into any equation?

31st December 2008, 11:53 AM	#1
rsalinger Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Southern California Posts: 54	David Chandler Part II I saw a new video by David Chandler posted here at youtube with this identifier /watch?v=XtKLtUiww80 In it he disputes the claim that the 18 stories of WTC7 took 5.4 seconds to collapse. He times it in this version at around 3.9 seconds. It's hard to believe that the NIST would make such a mistake. I noticed that he uses a different video but I can see why exactly that would matter if his statement that he's got floor 29 accurately identified is correct. I'm hoping that some clever geometer can give me an insight as to why this is wrong. Rgrds-Ross

31st December 2008, 12:48 PM	#5
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,324	Without a side by side comparison of the two videos I'm not sure any conclusion can be made. How do we know the speed (in relation to real time) is accurate in his video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

31st December 2008, 04:42 PM	#10
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by rsalinger Well, I've done further research and I must say that there are some things you could use to refute it. First, can you actually resolve in his video the 7 feet of movement the NIST describes as phase I of the collapse? I don't see how. Second, his measurement technique is different - they use a measure of pixel brightness he is trying to detect actual movement. Third, I don't see how he can tell he has the 29th floor. However, if you leave that aside, he seems to show a much longer freefall than the NIST does. Comments? I don't get it... If his methodology is flawed, what's the point in ignoring that and commenting on his conclusion instead? Are you working on the assumption that his conclusion is correct despite the flaws in his methods?
	Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 31st December 2008 at 04:44 PM.

1st January 2009, 06:00 AM	#14
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,465	Is Chandler using a copy of the original video, or is he using a YouTube video?
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops.

2nd January 2009, 06:20 PM	#19
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,465	Originally Posted by boloboffin David Chandler has a website. http://911speakout.org/ David Chandler has a "Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job (pdf)" essay at this website. David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence. Examples: Woo, doggy. Bolo, you meant to post this 7 years ago, did you?
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops.

31st December 2008, 12:10 PM	#2
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by rsalinger I noticed that he uses a different video but I can see why exactly that would matter if his statement that he's got floor 29 accurately identified is correct. His method of identifying the 29th floor is... non-existent.

31st December 2008, 12:38 PM	#3
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	The rub of it: All calculations are made from videos where the bottom half of the collapse cannot be seen, and is estimated. It is all up to interpretation. I am guessing (with a good degree of certainty) that NIST had a few more videos of the WTC7 collapse then dear mr.chandler. TAM

31st December 2008, 12:50 PM	#6
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	how do we know he is not making crap up for that matter. TAM

31st December 2008, 01:28 PM	#7
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	Making up crap is my first finding. Chandler uses Gross' hurried description of the NIST measurement to just throw numbers around. He could have gone to the NIST report, p. 600 of the accompanying chapters, and gotten a detailed description of where NIST started and stopped their measurements. But Chandler is a hack.

31st December 2008, 04:30 PM	#8
rsalinger Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Southern California Posts: 54	Well, I've done further research and I must say that there are some things you could use to refute it. First, can you actually resolve in his video the 7 feet of movement the NIST describes as phase I of the collapse? I don't see how. Second, his measurement technique is different - they use a measure of pixel brightness he is trying to detect actual movement. Third, I don't see how he can tell he has the 29th floor. However, if you leave that aside, he seems to show a much longer freefall than the NIST does. Comments?

31st December 2008, 04:39 PM	#9
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	His freefall measurement is a .25 of a second longer than NIST's. It's not that much longer, and probably due to his substandard measuring tools and techniques. Plus a little pillow for the hack to have some breathing room.

31st December 2008, 08:13 PM	#11
rsalinger Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Southern California Posts: 54	No, my intuition was that there's some obvious flaw beyond simple measurement error in his analysis and I'd like to have that in my repertoire when people bring it up. I guess I'll just stick with the problem of identifying the 29th floor accurately, the use of a different video, the only seven feet of movement, and the use of a different and less accurate measurement for movement (NIST pixel brightness versus being able to see the top move down at least one line in the video). I figured someone over here might have something I hadn't thought of. Rgrds-Ross

31st December 2008, 10:22 PM	#12
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	Originally Posted by rsalinger No, my intuition was that there's some obvious flaw beyond simple measurement error in his analysis and I'd like to have that in my repertoire when people bring it up. I guess I'll just stick with the problem of identifying the 29th floor accurately, the use of a different video, the only seven feet of movement, and the use of a different and less accurate measurement for movement (NIST pixel brightness versus being able to see the top move down at least one line in the video). I figured someone over here might have something I hadn't thought of. Rgrds-Ross Your repertoire? You don't need a repertoire. Just stick to the truth.

1st January 2009, 05:29 AM	#13
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Not to mention, we are watching a VIDEO where he is ALLEGEDLY counting out the frames ONE BY ONE, yet is he really. I mean there is no movement in dozens of frames he is allegedly counting, but if there is no movement in the frames, how do we know that each alleged frame he is counting is one frame. Beyond that, if we give him the benefit of the doubt on that one, his start and finish times are completely off the map. TAM

2nd January 2009, 10:51 AM	#16
rsalinger Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Southern California Posts: 54	Personally I thought it was amazing to simply distort what's in the report and claim it as facts. This seems to be the MO of these people. I particularly liked the idea that since the model mimics what's seen it must have been manipulated until it did no matter how absurd the assumptions. Or that they've hidden their data as if he had a computer that could even run such a simulation if he had the data, etc. When you look closely at the video, you can see very clearly the sky behind the top floor just before the whole thing comes down. You can see that it's unsupported. He also tries to make the point that free fall can only occur with NO resistance whereas they've actually simply fitted a line to the data which shows within limits that it fell as "essentially" free fall. Finally, his line is his graph is clearly incorrect - all the points fall on one side of the fitted line.

2nd January 2009, 06:19 PM	#18
WilliamSeger Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 275	Originally Posted by Bell Is Chandler using a copy of the original video, or is he using a YouTube video? That was my first question, too, and I can't seem to find any description on his blog of what he's using, exactly. In addition to questions about whether the video resolution really supports the kind of accuracy he's claiming, if it's any kind of compressed video with MPEG-2 type "temporal compression" (i.e. I-frames and "predicted" P-frames), then his analysis is going to be faulty: At that low resolution, the initial movement could easily be below the difference threshold used by the compression algorithm. You would definitely need a version that doesn't have any temporal compression to do this kind of analysis, and I can't find any suitable version online. But Chandler doesn't even mention this potential problem, which makes me suspect he isn't aware of it. But one big difference is that he measured points on the northeast corner, whereas NIST's measurements were taken from a point near the middle of the roof. Chandler just blows that off by claiming, "The fact that the roof stayed level shows the building was in free-fall across the entire width." That's certainly NOT a "fact.": All videos show a kink in the roofline; Chandler's "stayed level" claim is simply disingenuous. I also can't find any description of how Chandler determined vertical distances. I know that in his first analysis, he took a horizontal distance -- the width of the building -- and (incorrectly) assumed that vertical distances would be similar, without accounting for possible perspective effects and pixel aspect ratios (i.e. video pixels are not necessarily square). He puts an arrow on a point and asserts that it's the 29th floor, works backwards from there, and claims that NIST dishonestly stated a starting time to make the analysis agree with their model. Considering the seriousness of that accusation, I would think he would put a little more effort into explaining how he determined that was the 29th floor. It seems to me that Chandler has figured out that if the collapse started slowly, then the CD hypothesis doesn't really make any sense, so he's decided he needs to attack that slow start.

2nd January 2009, 09:19 PM	#20
davidschandler48 New Blood Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 24	Cut the ******** This is David Chandler speaking. You guys are off the charts in throwing around ad hominems with no evidence whatsoever. I have no intention of carrying on a running dialog here, but at least I can set some of the facts straight. Methodology: I used a high resolution version of the video. The window spacing is barely visible in the originals, but I enlarged a freeze frame, enhanced it to show the periodicity of the window spacing, and used a geometry tool that enabled me to get an accurate identification of the 29th floor. If you go to the document, not the botched verbal statements of Sunder and Gross, it is clear they used the roofline and the 29th floor: actually the top of the windows of the 29th floor. They give the heights of those two points to a resolution of a few inches. Before you conclude I blew it somewhere, note that NIST in their re-analysis agrees with my results. I can't be that far off. The 3.9 seconds is NIST's calculation for ideal freefall between the two elevations mentioned. It is correct. It is also a good estimate of the actual time of fall, which they artificially stretch out to 5.4 seconds. The 5.4 seconds has no basis in anything other than the need to get a measurement that agrees with NIST's model. This is the point of this video analysis in Part II. The end point is easily identified. The start point has no basis in anything. ---------------- "His method of identifying the 29th floor is... non-existent." -- just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you're right. "I am guessing (with a good degree of certainty) that NIST had a few more videos of the WTC7 collapse then dear mr.chandler." -- I have access to more videos than you may think. And by the way, why should NIST's data not be publicly accessible anyway? Isn't that our tax dollars at work? ... and by the way, I'm not dear to you, so don't say I am. "how do we know he is not making crap up for that matter." -- Because I'm standing behind my measurements and putting my name on the line ... you're not even standing behind your own pot shots, whoever you are, TAM "Making up crap is my first finding. Chandler uses Gross' hurried description of the NIST measurement to just throw numbers around. He could have gone to the NIST report, p. 600 of the accompanying chapters, and gotten a detailed description of where NIST started and stopped their measurements. But Chandler is a hack." -- I obviously DID get the data from NIST documents. I stated that in my earlier videos. You might want to check them out. I go through the methodology questions there. If I were making things up, NIST would have shot me down or ignored me rather than changing their tune on freefall. "His freefall measurement is a .25 of a second longer than NIST's. It's not that much longer, and probably due to his substandard measuring tools and techniques. Plus a little pillow for the hack to have some breathing room." -- You obviously don't understand issues of uncertainty in measurement data. Also, I am using the corner of the building and NIST is using a point midway along the roofline. Some of the variation comes from the initial sagging of their measurement point. By the way, I have yet to call any of you guys hacks. Is this your idea of keeping things on the level of a rational intellectual discussion? "Not to mention, we are watching a VIDEO where he is ALLEGEDLY counting out the frames ONE BY ONE, yet is he really. I mean there is no movement in dozens of frames he is allegedly counting, but if there is no movement in the frames, how do we know that each alleged frame he is counting is one frame." -- You can tell I'm stepping frames by the motion of the smoke. That's about all that moves, and tha'ts the point. If you don't believe I'm being straight, do the work yourself. All I've seen here is Monday night quarterbacking. Show me some of your expertise. "Chandler's Part III: More hackery, more lies, more self-congratulatory BS." -- Where's the beef? ...talk about self-congratulatory... "I particularly liked the idea that since the model mimics what's seen it must have been manipulated until it did no matter how absurd the assumptions. Or that they've hidden their data as if he had a computer that could even run such a simulation if he had the data, etc." -- The method of modeling the collapse is explicitly a matter of tweaking the inputs to see what it takes to get something that looks like the desired output. How do you know what their assumptions are or whether or not they are realistic? And even if they COULD model the collapse, which they obviously can't (5.4 seconds vs. 3.9), that doesn't mean that's how it happened. Is taking NIST on faith your idea of being a "skeptic"? And yes, there are people associated with AE911Truth that could run the models if they were made available. ...by the way, I get the definite impression from this whole forum that waving the flag is your idea of being intellectually cool, and anyone who would question whether the murdering thugs who did the 9/11 thing might have been Americans rather than Arabs is obviously a fool. Oklahoma City was obviously an Arab thing, right? That's what the media said initially, and that's what everyone was ready to buy into, but it just wasn't so. "David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence." -- That's an unsupported gratuitous accusation. "Woo, doggy" -- Oh, is that you're reasoning? "All videos show a kink in the roofline; Chandler's 'stayed level' claim is simply disingenuous." -- The kink moves down with the same acceleration as the rest of the building. I acknowledged there are small variations between their data and mine, but the acceleration they get is the same. You guys are all missing the point: NIST agrees with me. At this stage the accuracy of my measurements is a moot point. "I also can't find any description of how Chandler determined vertical distances." -- Check out my earlier video that goes into the Freefall measurement in detail. "I know that in his first analysis, he took a horizontal distance -- the width of the building -- and (incorrectly) assumed that vertical distances would be similar, without accounting for possible perspective effects and pixel aspect ratios (i.e. video pixels are not necessarily square)." -- I did in fact consider that question and concluded the pixels are square. Note the roundness of the CBS logo, for example. It has equal numbers of pixels each way. The main reason I rejected the horizontal calibration measurement was the smokyness of the left edge of the building. Look at my way earlier version of the measurement. I had to bracket the calibration. That doesn't mean I was unaware of the problem. It means I recognized the need to compensate to do the best with the data I had at the time. All of them produced reasonably consistent results, but when the NIST measurement data was published I was able to do a new version with improved reliability. I expected it might show me something definitively less than g, but I was wrong. It zeroed in on g with more precision than I had anticipated. NIST nails their number dead on g. Do you believe them and still think I'm all wet? "David Chandler has a website.... (I guess I can't even quote the site by your forum rules) David Chandler has a "Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job (pdf)" essay at this website." -- That's right. I let people know exactly why I believe the way I do. Where are you blogs explaining why Arab terrorism makes so much sense to you? All I see here is a bunch of think-alikes talking to themselves. "David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence. Examples: Woo, doggy. " -- Examples? Examples? Woo doggy! This forum is pathetic.
davidschandler48 New Blood Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 24

2nd January 2009, 09:21 PM	#21
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,465	Originally Posted by davidschandler48 This forum is pathetic. Then don't post here. 'kay. Thanks. Bye!
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops.

2nd January 2009, 09:28 PM	#22
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by davidschandler48 "His method of identifying the 29th floor is... non-existent." -- just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you're right. But you didn't say anything about it that could or could not be understood. Maybe I missed something in the video or elsewhere, but all you said, basically, was "the top of this building lines up with the 29th floor of WTC7." If you're using a different video than the one NIST used, how did you determine that?

2nd January 2009, 09:37 PM	#23
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,465	Originally Posted by davidschandler48 Apparently I can't leave links when I'm new to the forum, and I don't plan to hang around this forum after this post, but I just wanted to point out to you guys that your argument is now not with me but with NIST. So, you didn't plan to hang around this forum, but somehow managed to read this thread and post in it
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops.

2nd January 2009, 09:45 PM	#24
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	Originally Posted by davidschandler48 This is David Chandler speaking. Oh, excellent. I'll just pick out the places where you responded to me. Quote: "Making up crap is my first finding. Chandler uses Gross' hurried description of the NIST measurement to just throw numbers around. He could have gone to the NIST report, p. 600 of the accompanying chapters, and gotten a detailed description of where NIST started and stopped their measurements. But Chandler is a hack." -- I obviously DID get the data from NIST documents. I stated that in my earlier videos. You might want to check them out. I go through the methodology questions there. If I were making things up, NIST would have shot me down or ignored me rather than changing their tune on freefall. Mr. Chandler, in your second video, the one that I am commenting on, you only use the hurried definition given by Gross for your purposes. Again, you manage to misrepresent what's being said to justify yourself. Quote: "His freefall measurement is a .25 of a second longer than NIST's. It's not that much longer, and probably due to his substandard measuring tools and techniques. Plus a little pillow for the hack to have some breathing room." -- You obviously don't understand issues of uncertainty in measurement data. Also, I am using the corner of the building and NIST is using a point midway along the roofline. Some of the variation comes from the initial sagging of their measurement point. By the way, I have yet to call any of you guys hacks. Is this your idea of keeping things on the level of a rational intellectual discussion? I call you a hack because you are a hack. As you well know, your third video actually measures almost exactly the same amount of time as NIST for the period of freefall, which makes the comment I was responding to even more wrong. However, neither I nor the earlier commenter had the benefit of having seen the third video -- since you hadn't released it yet. You HAD released it when you posted this. Yet another example of your hackery. Quote: "Chandler's Part III: More hackery, more lies, more self-congratulatory BS." -- Where's the beef? ...talk about self-congratulatory... How is anything there of mine self-congratulatory? Perhaps you don't understand the term. Quote: "David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence." -- That's an unsupported gratuitous accusation. I provided several examples of your lying about 9/11 evidence. One of the more egregious ones is where you claim that Silverstein admited to he and the fired commander making the decision to demolish Building 7. That, sir, is a LIE. And that's not even playing around with the definition of "pull." Silverstein quite clearly says that THEY made the decision to pull. He expressly excludes himself from the decision making. You have LIED. Deal with it. Quote: "Woo, doggy" -- Oh, is that you're reasoning? No, that's not my reasoning. That's my judgment on the matter. It's my opinion, shared among many people who also understand the fraud you are perpetuating with your videos. You are not at a AE911Truth backslapping forum here. We know how wrong you are and the lies that you are telling about this event. Quote: "David Chandler has a website.... (I guess I can't even quote the site by your forum rules) You have to have 15 posts before you can post links or even quote them. Quote: David Chandler has a "Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job (pdf)" essay at this website." -- That's right. I let people know exactly why I believe the way I do. Where are you blogs explaining why Arab terrorism makes so much sense to you? All I see here is a bunch of think-alikes talking to themselves. Let me get this straight. You are denying any existence of terrorism by Arabs whatsoever? Is that your final answer? Quote: "David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence. Examples: Woo, doggy. " -- Examples? Examples? Woo doggy! So right you had to quote me twice. Yes, those are example of your lies, your deceit, your wrongheadness, and your tendency toward all things woo. If you don't like this, the remedy lies in yourself.

2nd January 2009, 09:56 PM	#25
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,904	Originally Posted by davidschandler48 Oklahoma City was obviously an Arab thing, right? That's what the media said initially, and that's what everyone was ready to buy into, but it just wasn't so. ... This forum is pathetic. If you are saying WTC7 did not collapse due to fire, your work is complete junk. OKC, in days we knew it was not Arab's, only a fool jumps to conclusions and make up idiot ideas like WTC7 was CD. 7 years, now you do it by choice? You choose to make up stupid ideas? 19 terrorists did 9/11, it is a fact. Prove otherwise you would have a Pulitzer Prize, but too bad you have no evidence for 7 years, for something that would take months, not years. It is year 7 and if you believe anything other than 19 terrorists you are as good as a Bigfoot believer. So what happen to WTC7 in one sentence, do you have summary? Do you have some nut case idea? ... Oops, you are a “9/11 was an inside job” nut case idea guy. Good for you! This is the place for you to post your tripe if it is new. Oops, your paper has JFK woo junk too. Never include off topic real stupid in a real stupid paper, it detracts from the purpose and overall theme. Welcome to JREF - even though you have no evidence to support your inside job ideas. Welcome to JREF JFK was killed by one man and has nothing to do with 9/11. Keep your CTs separate. Quote: Steven Jones and others has established that there were very high temperatures present in the building, not just enough to weaken steel, but to melt it. He has found evidence for Thermate (Thermite + accelerant), … This is in your paper. Jones made up thermite 4 years after 9/11; you are gullible. Jones has no evidence; he is still looking for it.
	Last edited by beachnut; 2nd January 2009 at 10:45 PM.

2nd January 2009, 10:13 PM	#26
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	Originally Posted by Bell Bolo, you meant to post this 7 years ago, did you? What? He's been posting 9/11 CT woo for seven years now? Well, how about that?

2nd January 2009, 10:15 PM	#27
WilliamSeger Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 275	Originally Posted by davidschandler48 Methodology: I used a high resolution version of the video. I can't find any version of that video has resolution sufficient to identify the windows, so perhaps you could be so kind as to provide your version for independent confirmation. Also, as I pointed out, whether you used an MPEG-2 compressed video or a duplicate of the original (with all frames intact) is an issue with regards to the "sudden onset of free-fall," independent of resolution, and it may explain why you can't find NIST's starting point, if they used a duplicate of the original. Speaking of which, your previous analysis showed a period of slow descent, with some velocity but little or no acceleration, whereas NIST's data showed a similar period but with slow acceleration. Your current analysis seems more ambiguous, and since you don't really say anything about that period (other than the "sudden onset" claim), I can't tell what you are now claiming about the initial slow descent that NIST's analysis shows. Was the building descending slowly at first or not? If it was, that's obviously a difficult thing to explain with a controlled demolition, unless you hypothesize that the plotters found a way to initiate a slow collapse, like a progressive collapse, but then decided to blow out the columns on 8 floors (even though the building was already headed down). And of course, you still have the difficulty of explaining the most obvious problem with WTC7 controlled demolition theories (only more so, really): What kind of explosives did they use that could "instantaneously" destroy the columns on 8 floors, yet not produce the explosive noise and seismic disturbances that are seen with controlled demolitions involving only one or two floors exploded? And speaking of just the free-fall period, I don't accept your assertion that the only explanation is that the columns were blown out. If the columns were buckled to the point of failure during that first second or so of slow descent, how much resistance would they have presented to the falling top section, and is the analysis sensitive enough to detect that resistance? And if the columns were actually being pulled inward by the collapsing floors on that level, why would they need any additional energy from the falling top section? (Edit to add: Your analysis of the Zapruder film doesn't inspire much confidence. Perhaps you should take a much closer look at that some day.)
	Last edited by WilliamSeger; 2nd January 2009 at 10:19 PM.

3rd January 2009, 05:04 AM	#29
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,465	Originally Posted by boloboffin What? He's been posting 9/11 CT woo for seven years now? Well, how about that? It's more a case that all those claims have long been debunked. But that's the truth movement for you.
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops.

3rd January 2009, 09:34 AM	#30
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	Originally Posted by Bell It's more a case that all those claims have long been debunked. But that's the truth movement for you. Oh, I see. Yes, that's one of the facepalm moments about it. The only new thing Chandler has (the measurement of the freefall period) is something that verifies NIST's model of the collapse. Everything else is SSDT.

3rd January 2009, 10:58 AM	#31
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by davidschandler48 This forum is pathetic. No sir, you and your ilk are pathetic. 7 years out from that horrible tragedy, with allegedly proof positive it was an inside job, and what have you all done...*********** SQUAT!! You wander around internet forums defending the crap you want to call science and analysis, when in fact it is nothing like legitimate science and investigative analysis. You have had seven years, you, and the others who profess to know the real truth about 911, and you have not done anything at all with it. Sitting on the proof positive that 3000 innocent americans were killed by their own government. Allegedly 100s of thousands of you, and all you can manage is a few hundred dollars here and there, a few hundred at GZ on the 5th anniversary, a bunch of pathetic websites dedicated to your 15 minutes of fame. A few publishings, by the most famous of you, in pseudo journals where you have to pay to be published. No sir, it is not a few dozen concerned citizens of the world, who post here to reveal the snake oil for what it is, that are pathetic. It is the alleged thousands of people in the truth movement that have sat back in their computer chairs, and done nothing more than investigoogle for their cause, that are the pathetic ones. You wanna impress people, get on TV with your evidence. Get before politicians with your evidence. But that wont happen. You will say it is because the man keeps you from doing so, but we know the real reason...your movement has NO PROOF, just speculation and accusation. Pathetic. TAM

3rd January 2009, 11:15 AM	#32
roundhead Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 824	Thanks David, for coming on here and sharing your explanations on this forum. Much appreciated It is noteworthy you do it in an adult like fashion, in spite of childish blabbering by many of the folks here, who much prefer hurling insults than actually addressing pertinent points. Sadly, that is the way it generally works here. Signed, An unremovable rock in the shoe
roundhead Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 824

3rd January 2009, 11:22 AM	#33
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,324	Originally Posted by roundhead Thanks David, for coming on here and sharing your explanations on this forum. Much appreciated It is noteworthy you do it in an adult like fashion, in spite of childish blabbering by many of the folks here, who much prefer hurling insults than actually addressing pertinent points. Sadly, that is the way it generally works here. Signed, An unremovable rock in the shoe You do know that here in the US we throw shoes away that are worn out? Time to step up to the plate and actually make a stand and present you evidence. Your ('truthers") act is getting stale.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

3rd January 2009, 11:30 AM	#34
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	1. If you don't like the way the forums work, or how the posters post, then (A) complain to the mods, or (B) leave. No one is making you stay. Now I realize, not only from your "rock" comment, but from your behavior, that you enjoy trolling, and generally ****-disturbing, round head, but you are commenting on juvenile behaviour, yet acting like a childlike troll yourself. 2. There are no pertinent points, except in the minds of the delusionally paranoid, and scientifically illiterate. TAM

3rd January 2009, 05:44 PM	#35
GregoryUrich Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Main Street USA Posts: 1,316	Serious skeptics may want to consider... Dr. Greening has used NIST's own equations to show that portions of the fall were FASTER than freefall (in accord with NIST's equations anyway). Go to
	__________________ "My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil

3rd January 2009, 05:54 PM	#36
stateofgrace Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 3,847	Originally Posted by GregoryUrich Dr. Greening has used NIST's own equations to show that portions of the fall were FASTER than freefall (in accord with NIST's equations anyway). Go to But didn't he also say this Quote: "I think David Chandler has done some good work with his little video but I do have one complaint. This is with his selection of t(zero). Even looking at the velocity plot he displays in his video I would move his t(zero) cursor a tad to the left which would slow his acceleration significantly ...... This has prompted me to do some sensitivity tests on some of my own collapse plots. I have taken one of my "best efforts", which generates a very smooth curve, and looked at the effect of shifting t(zero) by just 0.1 seconds. When I do this I get these two curves: The original plot fits to: Drop = -0.077t^3 + 4.8433t^2 -0.2123 t + 0.0669 And the plot shifted by 0.1 seconds gives: Drop = -0.0176t^3 + 4.4721t^2 - 0.5854t + 0.0034 Hence for the acceleration, by double differentiation, we have: Original plot: Accel = 9.6866 - 0.462t Plot shifted by 0.1 seconds: Accel = 8.9442 - 0.1056t Thus we see a marked change in the calculated acceleration for just a 0.1 second shift. This is why I have argued that the measured acceleration is about 9.2 +/- 0.6 m/s^2. This means the collapse of WTC 7 is still VERY fast, and WAY FASTER than NIST says, but certainly NOT at free fall!" Dr. G http://the911forum.freeforums.org/da...wtc-7-t79.html ?

3rd January 2009, 06:01 PM	#37
GregoryUrich Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Main Street USA Posts: 1,316	Originally Posted by stateofgrace But didn't he also say this http://the911forum.freeforums.org/da...wtc-7-t79.html ? Dr. G, One White Eye and Einsteen have done some pretty careful analysis and while I haven't been following the details, I'm inclined to trust their work. They tend to acknowledge the limitations of their methods and are open to criticism. Nonetheless, NIST still says it fell faster than freefall. No problem with that?
	__________________ "My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil

3rd January 2009, 06:03 PM	#38
stateofgrace Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 3,847	Originally Posted by GregoryUrich Dr. G, One White Eye and Einsteen have done some pretty careful analysis and while I haven't been following the details, I'm inclined to trust their work. They tend to acknowledge the limitations of their methods and are open to criticism. Nonetheless, NIST still says it fell faster than freefall. No problem with that? No problem at all, should I have? Do you? I take it when you say "portions" you are now referring to the entire building? No problem with that?
	Last edited by stateofgrace; 3rd January 2009 at 06:14 PM.

3rd January 2009, 06:33 PM	#39
GregoryUrich Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Main Street USA Posts: 1,316	Originally Posted by stateofgrace No problem at all, should I have? Do you? I take it when you say "portions" you are now referring to the entire building? No problem with that? The entire building above the point of collapse. The acceleration varied over the duration of the fall and for a period of around 1 sec the acceleration was greater than freefall. Yes I have a problem with that. It means that NIST has presented a bogus equation because there is no way to physically account for an acceleration greater than freefall. Along with the other problems that Dr. Greening has pointed out, the report is essentially shown to be bunk. I would think that any skeptic would be apalled at this sort of erroneous psuedo-science.
	__________________ "My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil