David Chandler Part II - Page 4

A W Smith · 25th February 2009, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

No...the first 2.25 seconds was very near perpendicular to the ground....see GldBr's veoh video

What? you believe it should have fallen over like an oak tree with an axeman's notch in it? Thats absurd. Can you run the math by me again that shows how it should hinge over at the bottom? You know the south side damage had nothing to do with collapse initiation.

JSSTyger · 25th February 2009, 10:34 PM

OK I'm leaving the forum for the night. This just so not cool they actually created a thread to hound a guy who uses REAL physics to support his theory on WTC 7. Just goes to show that, when dealing with the govt., if the means doesn't support the desired conclusion...the means is invalid. I mean Chandler repeatedly explained himself throughout his vids. He was scientifically accurate in his methodology. He showed and explained his data. I suppose you hate him just because hes on the "opposite side" but...what more could he have done??? He had "zero" budget. NIST had 40 million.

Maybe NIST's presentation was better

Shyam Sunder: "gravity is uhh the uhh duhh loading function uhh which applies duhh to all umm structures duhh on this uhhh planet...and not just....uhhh at ground zero.....free fall requires no structural resistance...which is NOT the case (oops I guess yes it WAS the case uhhh for a third of the collapse)"

You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST

TexasJack · 25th February 2009, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

You can call me a loon..if that makes you feel better. But this not a blind belief. And I do have credentials that,in the very least, lend me partial credibility.

As opposed to NIST, who possess credentials that give them full credibility.

DavidJames · 25th February 2009, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

OK I'm leaving the forum for the night.

Have a nice night and hopefully when you wake up you'll realize that you haven't presented one scintilla of intelligent information, will apologize for wasting everyone's time and promise to go to school so you can be a productive contributor to society when you grow up.

beachnut · 25th February 2009, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

I often wonder why you people don't use your analytic abilities to analyze NIST's theory. Is this not the official theory? Back it up!! I'll admit...its got to be quite hard now that NIST has abandoned the fuel oil tanks and long span floor truss theories. We told you that stuff was BS all along but you guys follow NIST wherever it takes you. NIST coulda told you that the building did jumping jacks before it fell, create a visual model of it, and then you would applaud them for their "breakthrough" in engineering excellence.

Have you learned why NIST studied WTC7? Not to placate the 911Truth delusions (no).

You can spew implications of delusions all you want about NIST and 911 built on hearsay, false information and fantasy. But you can't refute NIST conclusions, or the big picture. Why does 911Truth lack the knowledge and skills to do this? Because after 7 years 911Truth is evidence free.

What is the problem, can’t 911Truth grasp the complex plot of 19 terrorists,
1 – kill pilots
2 – fly planes into buildings
Much too complex so they make up delusions to sell books and DVDs to people too challenged to research 911 on their own and would rather regurgitate failed ideas based on hearsay, false information, and fantasy.

Like your squibs, the most idiotic idea on 911 ever! (maybe nukes and beam weapons beat it)

I have some questions you need to ask 911Truth and yourself. Where is 911Truth’s Pulitzer Prize for exposing the biggest inside job in history the destruction of the WTC complex by whoever 911Truth delusions say it was? Where is their evidence?

Why do a minuscule number of engineers (any type of engineer you want) support the delusions of 911Truth; at 0.001 percent?

Wowzer, are you one of those 0.001 percent engineers, or are you just supporting their failed ideas?

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST

No one hates the guy, his delusions of CD is stupid. Using knowledge and sound judgment to simple to see he is spewing conclusions that are delusions. You may hate him when you see how little knowledge it takes to refute his failed conclusions.

I hope you are not wasting time to prove he is right when you can just go to the nearest TV station, radio station and break this Pulitzer Prize story! Tell me you are taking action and not arguing with people who have read all of NIST, engineers, pilots, ATC, mathematicians, history majors, young people who have learned to be skeptical of all, and other professional people and laypeople who post here and are not only skeptical of the official story but also skeptical of 911Truth who have been found to be delusion experts.

Most of the people posting at JREF are skeptical of stuff! I wonder why? Gee, I get this feeling of skepticism on each page here for some reason. But you support failed conclusions with no skepticism, without study, without evidence to support your contrary view. Where as the 19 terrorists left evidence, something the delusion of 911Truth failed to do – leave evidence.

Prove to me fires do not destroy buildings and I will convert, but I cheated, I have seen steel buildings fail in fire quicker than wood buildings. And I found this out at before I was a teenager just by observation. My engineering degrees only make me overqualified to plant my peach trees and roses, and build my pergola for my grapes.

No one hates the messenger they hate his anti-intellectual conclusions (...). In the USA we let people spew hearsay, false information, and fantasy as if it were true. You need to gain knowledge to sort out the delusional conclusion this guy has.

You need to stop believing everything you find on the Internet and have more skepticism. Look up there at the top left… see … you have fallen into a nest of skeptics and I need to work on the friendly part and stop being too lively. Did you fail to bring your skepticism with you, and your science?

ElMondoHummus · 26th February 2009, 04:33 AM

This is better; you're restricting yourself to points about the collapse.

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

All I was doing in my original post here was eliminating "plausible" theories...not all of them NIST theories...but any possible theory you all could come up with.

No, all you were doing was stating unsupported incredulity at specific details.

Everyone else: Let's refrain from snark about him "eliminating "plausible" theories". His context makes clear that he really meant what he thinks are implausible explanations, and there's enough in what he posts to go after substance rather than nitpick about a simple error in word choice.

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

I know what NIST says about ohhh thermal expansion and column 79 blowing out on level 13 and somehow the internal structure just ripped itself away from the facade and lead the collapse while the facade was standing for a few seconds. Yes I know the NIST fairy tale. I have seen the model where the frame just twists and wilts. And the whole north and west faces of the facade shows no signs, no cracks, no buckled columns or beams punching through them...minimal broken windows. I mean...not to be offensive but this is all just common sense.

Thermal expansion is a well established problem with steel; hence the need for fireproofing and construction standards that take it into account.

You need to actually demonstrate what you think is wrong with the model. Simply calling it a "fairy tale" is not a refutation of it. Not in the absence of arguments demonstrating the points that are incorrect, and most definitely not in the presence of long falsified claims like "squibs".

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

You can call me a loon..if that makes you feel better. But this not a blind belief. And I do have credentials that,in the very least, lend me partial credibility.

No one has to call you anything. Arguing explosives establishes what sort of thinker you are without any action from us. And it doesn't matter what your "credentials" are, your statements evaporate whatever credibility your credentials supposedly establish.

It's never about "who" anyone is; the crux of the argument is either supported or refuted by what they say. And so far, what little you've said is merely a repeat of the same distortions presented for years now. Take your mention of squibs: That's been bounced off of members of this forum since before I've been here. When someone says "squibs", I just direct them to these sites:

... and until those points are addressed, there's nothing more to say about it.

Disbelief · 26th February 2009, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

1) 6) How does a building being structurally damaged and having fires refute demolition????

For a few reasons:

1) If the building was prepped beforehand, how did the demolitions survive the damage and fires? Would they not have exploded from impact and intense heat?

2) If the building was prepped beforehand, how were they able to account for the damage to be able to still demolish the building? Changing the strcture with damage would change the dynamics of any planned demolition.

3) If the charges were set after the tower collapse, how did a team get in covertly?

4) If the charges were set after tower collapse, how did they analyze the building so quickly and know where to set the charges?

These are just a few reasons off the top of my head, and there are probably some I am missing.

GStan · 26th February 2009, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Disbelief

For a few reasons:

1) If the building was prepped beforehand, how did the demolitions survive the damage and fires? Would they not have exploded from impact and intense heat?

2) If the building was prepped beforehand, how were they able to account for the damage to be able to still demolish the building? Changing the strcture with damage would change the dynamics of any planned demolition.

3) If the charges were set after the tower collapse, how did a team get in covertly?

4) If the charges were set after tower collapse, how did they analyze the building so quickly and know where to set the charges?

These are just a few reasons off the top of my head, and there are probably some I am missing.

5) Complete absence of sounds consistent with demolition charges.
6) Complete absence of materials in the rubble pile consistent with demolition charges.
7) Complete absence of any belief by the closest witnesses to the collapse (firefighters) of possibility of a demolition.

T.A.M. · 26th February 2009, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

such strong words. Do you always jump to such quick stupid conclusions? Why swear?

No not always, just feeling particularly annoyed by ignorance and paranoia today, so I decided to lash out. You were the recipient. The swearing, well why not?

TAM

T.A.M. · 26th February 2009, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

There is no "strawman" about the demolition of WTC 7. I've challenged many people many times to give an example of a solid object collapsing in on itself under its own weight straight down and I've never gotten a legitimate answer. Structural mechanics just doesn't work that way. You just can't have a building thats supposedly gouged on one side fall straight down.

SO prove it. Show us your own calculations that provide proof that WTC7 could not have collapsed as NIST has theorized/proposed.

Thanks in advance.

TAM

T.A.M. · 26th February 2009, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

All I was doing in my original post here was eliminating "plausible" theories...not all of them NIST theories...but any possible theory you all could come up with. I know what NIST says about ohhh thermal expansion and column 79 blowing out on level 13 and somehow the internal structure just ripped itself away from the facade and lead the collapse while the facade was standing for a few seconds. Yes I know the NIST fairy tale. I have seen the model where the frame just twists and wilts. And the whole north and west faces of the facade shows no signs, no cracks, no buckled columns or beams punching through them...minimal broken windows. I mean...not to be offensive but this is all just common sense.

You can call me a loon..if that makes you feel better. But this not a blind belief. And I do have credentials that,in the very least, lend me partial credibility.

It doesn't make me feel better, but can I still call you one? I mean you come here, and you inform us that a large group of engineers trained in the relative fields are wrong, and that you know the answer, yet you neither provide evidence through scientific experiment or calculation that they are wrong, nor anything close to a logical or sensible alternative with likewise calculations.

So yah, Loon is a pretty good title. Please provide us the credentials, for curiosity, but then, to win the big prize, use your knowledge, which allowed you to obtain those credentials, to show us where and how NIST got it wrong.

TAM

T.A.M. · 26th February 2009, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

OK I'm leaving the forum for the night. This just so not cool they actually created a thread to hound a guy who uses REAL physics to support his theory on WTC 7. Just goes to show that, when dealing with the govt., if the means doesn't support the desired conclusion...the means is invalid. I mean Chandler repeatedly explained himself throughout his vids. He was scientifically accurate in his methodology. He showed and explained his data. I suppose you hate him just because hes on the "opposite side" but...what more could he have done??? He had "zero" budget. NIST had 40 million.

Maybe NIST's presentation was better

Shyam Sunder: "gravity is uhh the uhh duhh loading function uhh which applies duhh to all umm structures duhh on this uhhh planet...and not just....uhhh at ground zero.....free fall requires no structural resistance...which is NOT the case (oops I guess yes it WAS the case uhhh for a third of the collapse)"

You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST

SO you have reduced yourself to making fun of someones speech patterns, and still remain on your soapbox condemning others for how they treat people?

There is a word for that...look it up if you don't know what it is.

TAM

DGM · 26th February 2009, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST

How so? Did you actually read (and understand) their report?

Quote:

You

I know what NIST says about ohhh thermal expansion and column 79 blowing out on level 13 and somehow the internal structure just ripped itself away from the facade and lead the collapse while the facade was standing for a few seconds. Yes I know the NIST fairy tale. I have seen the model where the frame just twists and wilts. And the whole north and west faces of the facade shows no signs, no cracks, no buckled columns or beams punching through them...minimal broken windows. I mean...not to be offensive but this is all just common sense.

Apparently not!

TexasJack · 26th February 2009, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

Shyam Sunder: "gravity is uhh the uhh duhh loading function uhh which applies duhh to all umm structures duhh on this uhhh planet...and not just....uhhh at ground zero.....free fall requires no structural resistance...which is NOT the case (oops I guess yes it WAS the case uhhh for a third of the collapse)"

You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST

FYI here is Sunder's education, since you think you are qualified to speak on this subject, can you remotely come close to that? Or more importantly, can you refute the scientific conclusions he and the NIST determined?

Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, B. Tech., (Honors), Civil Engineering, 1977

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, S.M., Civil Engineering, 1979

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sc.D., Structural Engineering, 1981

Sizzler · 26th February 2009, 10:43 PM

WTC7 was the smoking gun that brought me to examine the "911 was an inside job" claim.

And after NIST released their final report, I am even more convinced that WTC7 remains the smoking gun.

It is so f'n obvious, yet so F'n irrelevant these days it isn't even funny.

Move on people. Only your kids kids will be able to examine it with an open mind.

R.Mackey · 26th February 2009, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

WTC7 was the smoking gun that brought me to examine the "911 was an inside job" claim.

And after NIST released their final report, I am even more convinced that WTC7 remains the smoking gun.

It is so f'n obvious, yet so F'n irrelevant these days it isn't even funny.

Move on people. Only your kids kids will be able to examine it with an open mind.

How times change...

Originally Posted by Sizzler

I recently came across a post by Newtons Bit that made a whole lot of sense.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...50&postcount=4

With this in mind, I hereby state that I will abandon the CD hypothesis if no serious challenge to NIST's WTC7 report is put forth.

Oh well. For the record, I did enjoy some of your commentary, and at times you were quite open minded. I have a new policy, however, that I need to refer you to. Thanks for your understanding.

beachnut · 26th February 2009, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

WTC7 was the smoking gun that brought me to examine the "911 was an inside job" claim.

And after NIST released their final report, I am even more convinced that WTC7 remains the smoking gun.

It is so f'n obvious, yet so F'n irrelevant these days it isn't even funny.

Move on people. Only your kids kids will be able to examine it with an open mind.

Where is your evidence?

The only smoking gun WTC7 represents is that fire destroys buildings; old story and the moronic delusions of 911Truth have proven to be failed for over 7 years.

The best we can expect from 911Truth is more moronic rehashing of their old failed ideas. Does anyone take physics in high school anymore? I see that no child left behind has failed as the left behinds have followed the idiotic rants of 911Truth.

The only smoking guy for you is you have failed to use evidence to make a rational conclusion, and you must seek out knowledge and use sound judgment to do better.

My grandkids already understand reality and will not fall for delusions based on hearsay, lies and fantasy as you have.
911Truth = failure (no Pulitzer Prize for the doltish ideas of 911Truth)

It is so obvious you missed it and got it backwards. Same old 911Truth.

Disbelief · 27th February 2009, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

WTC7 was the smoking gun that brought me to examine the "911 was an inside job" claim.

And after NIST released their final report, I am even more convinced that WTC7 remains the smoking gun.

It is so f'n obvious, yet so F'n irrelevant these days it isn't even funny.

Move on people. Only your kids kids will be able to examine it with an open mind.

If this is true, maybe you can start with post 127.

Sword_Of_Truth · 27th February 2009, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by davidschandler48

This is David Chandler speaking.

A.) Is it true that you are only a high school teacher?

B.) I have been personally amused the full on retreat from the claim of "free fall speed" that the truthers have been chanting endlessly for nearly 4 years. All the whooping and hollering over the so called "admission" by the NIST that WTC7 came down at free fall acceleration for a portion of the collapse is actually a surrendering of precious ground. The truth movement isn't moving forward, they are falling back and licking thier wounds.

C.) I don't believe that you truly feel that the NIST has been "dry labbing" or willfully and knowingly falsifying data. I don't know the proper avenues by which to bring up a complaint of professional misconduct by the NIST team, but I'm fairly certain it doesn't involve whining about it on youtube.

D.) What have you done with David Chandlers 1 through 47?

alienentity · 28th February 2009, 06:36 PM

Hi Kiddies,

This is my first post in JREF forums. Not really important, but a small milestone...

Regarding David Chandler, I came across his vids recently, and I thought - is this true? Are NIST committing fraud, 'dry-labing'? I paid some attention to the claims and decided to test the 5.4 sec vs 3.9 claim.

I made some annotated versions of Chandler's vids, 'cause he doesn't allow comments on his channel (coward).
The first is titled 'NIST WTC 7 (Chandler debunked) 1' on my youtube channel

My own new vid, with my analysis is 'WTC 7 NIST Debunked Pt 1 (Hi Res)'
watch?v=bKgtmnf63Nw

(I don't think I can post direct links yet). You'll have to google or search in youtube.
sorry.

My conclusion: Chandler was wrong. 5.4 sec stands as the correct time from observable collapse of the top floors.

Please check my videos and pass on if you likey. Bitchslap those wascally twoofers often and hard, I say!

T.A.M. · 28th February 2009, 06:49 PM

welcome to the forum alienidentity.

TAM

beachnut · 28th February 2009, 06:52 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

this is it

What vid ed did you use? Does it burn to DVD etc.

thanks, welcome

T.A.M. · 28th February 2009, 07:02 PM

very nice video.

Good job.

TAM

Grizzly Bear · 28th February 2009, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by alienentity

Hi Kiddies,

This is my first post in JREF forums. Not really important, but a small milestone...

Regarding David Chandler, I came across his vids recently, and I thought - is this true? Are NIST committing fraud, 'dry-labing'? I paid some attention to the claims and decided to test the 5.4 sec vs 3.9 claim.

I made some annotated versions of Chandler's vids, 'cause he doesn't allow comments on his channel (coward).
The first is titled 'NIST WTC 7 (Chandler debunked) 1' on my youtube channel

My own new vid, with my analysis is 'WTC 7 NIST Debunked Pt 1 (Hi Res)'
watch?v=bKgtmnf63Nw

(I don't think I can post direct links yet). You'll have to google or search in youtube.
sorry.

My conclusion: Chandler was wrong. 5.4 sec stands as the correct time from observable collapse of the top floors.

Please check my videos and pass on if you likey. Bitchslap those wascally twoofers often and hard, I say!

15 posts will give you the option in the future

Looks like your vid got me to dust off my youtube account and comment...

A W Smith · 28th February 2009, 07:40 PM

Wow. I did not notice before how the west top corner of 7 pulled towards the east as the penthouse on the east started to drop. You can see it at about 5.30 in the video when you roll the clip back and forth.. So something is shrinking the width of the building from east to west. Exactly as would be expected with a cascading collapse of interior columns towards the west.as #79 failed. This is even before the kink becomes pronounced.

alienentity · 28th February 2009, 11:44 PM

Thank you all.

If you watch my vid on my channel, you'll also notice that David Chandler and I had a bit of 'back and forth' over the last 24 hrs. I'm glad he took notice (that was part of my motivation) but I told him frankly that he isn't behaving like a scientist - I don't see a problem with constructive criticism of NIST's collapse model, but he goes way beyond that. Hence he deserves a good swift kick in the pills, IMHO.

To Beachnut - I used imovie, and I can burn to DVD. There are two resolutions of my video available, the one linked to here is Hi Res. If you want something even better, I'll put it up on my channel for you. Lemme know.

AW Smith noticed the 'oscillation' of the NW corner - I wondered if it was an video aberration but I think you're probably right about shrinkage.
I also noticed a pronounced change in the windows below the E penthouse after it collapses - they appear lighter. NIST seems to think this is a change in reflection caused by the upper wall moving, but I wonder if it could be skylight showing thru empty space.

It could also have been the worklights from Larry Silverstein's Fire Department demolition crew. That's more likely.....

Brainster · 1st March 2009, 12:45 AM

Nice job, AE, I have posted this at SLC.

UNLoVedRebel · 1st March 2009, 01:04 AM

Great vid! Chandler's methodology of trying to detect motion frame x frame shows a complete lack of understanding in human perception. Horizontal progressive failure confirmed yet again.

Sword_Of_Truth · 1st March 2009, 11:15 AM

Chandler on alienentitys youtube page: "Sunder and the NIST are all liars, alienentity is just a musician and now I'm leaving because I can't handle all the name-calling here".

God help us all if the twoof movement ever selects a grown up as its patron saint du jour.

T.A.M. · 1st March 2009, 11:26 AM

That is funny. So a SCHOOL TEACHER (IIRC) uses an ad hominem against a musician (one that alienidentity could easily throw back at the SCHOOL TEACHER), shouts from the rooftop that they "are all liars", then pokes his tail between his legs and slinks away. And this man is in charge of teaching children. Not setting a very good example.

TAM

A W Smith · 1st March 2009, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

That is funny. So a SCHOOL TEACHER (IIRC) uses an ad hominem against a musician (one that alienidentity could easily throw back at the SCHOOL TEACHER), shouts from the rooftop that they "are all liars", then pokes his tail between his legs and slinks away. And this man is in charge of teaching children. Not setting a very good example.

TAM

Chandler should start a group. school teachers for 911 truth.
Hes not the only teacher to make bad decisions as shown by the category list to the right

Grizzly Bear · 1st March 2009, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by alienentity

I also noticed a pronounced change in the windows below the E penthouse after it collapses - they appear lighter. NIST seems to think this is a change in reflection caused by the upper wall moving, but I wonder if it could be skylight showing thru empty space.

Actually from the videos I've seen, as the east penthouse collapsed into the interior numerous windows started to break from the top to the bottom up to the point that the main exterior wall began to fail. I interpreted it as breakage with zoomed in versions but through youtube the resolutions' shoddy at best. Regardless I assume you noticed this through the same videos that I've seen. My understanding is that it was effect of the collapse progression in the very early stages

ElMondoHummus · 1st March 2009, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Chandler on alienentitys youtube page: "Sunder and the NIST are all liars, alienentity is just a musician and now I'm leaving because I can't handle all the name-calling here".

God help us all if the twoof movement ever selects a grown up as its patron saint du jour.

That's 99% a pure, classic ad-hominem attack, with the remaining 1% being left off because he merely implied, not directly stated, that alienentity was wrong because he's a musician. Otherwise, it's classic.

Again, as everyone who's a regular here already knows: It's not who the person is, it's what they say. I don't tote Gravy's page because his tour guide expertise puts him in the midst of New York, I do so because what he's put together stands on its own merit. No less.

Similarly, I've moved away (yes, I did often commit the mistake in the past, and occasionally slip these days) from denigrating Steven Jones (physicist) and DRG (theologian) on the basis of their non-expertise on the subject. It made sense at the time, but that's the trap of ad-hominem: It makes sense in a relative way, but it's the absolute issue of logical support that matters. And their arguments do not fail because of their education or career, they fail on their own lack of merit. The only thing salvaging them seems to be the academic authority of the authors, and even that has been rapidly eroding as time goes by.

At any rate, that's not a good showing by Chandler. If he's got a counter, he needs to state it in some way other than simple denigration.

alienentity · 1st March 2009, 11:55 PM

ElMondoHummus - well said. I should point out that Chandler's exact words were 'As for all the name calling, which is where this thread seems to be heading, I'm not into that. I'm out-a-here. Bye. '
And he accused me of a double-standard, because I said I'd wager that if he had a PhD SE, he'd be singing a different tune. To be clear I was referring to his insistence on CD, and that 2.25 s of 'Freefall means controlled demolition, pure and simple. That means we're dealing with a crime and a criminal cover-up.'

So, to be clear, I questioned his credentials to
1) do forensic video analysis (is that the correct term?)
2) make definitive statements about CD and WTC 7

physics? Hell yeah! He has training in physics... Doesn't have very much to do with his 'truther' stance though.....

I find it both disturbing and humorous (a combination which is more palatable after a couple of single malts) that he can look at a detailed critique of his timing and ask me why I'm focusing on his credentials and not the facts.

Hard facts are not the strong suit of 9-11 truthers. And they HATE to be reminded of that...

So, no ad Hummusnems are really needed.

alienentity · 2nd March 2009, 12:25 AM

So what's your best working theory about the collapse?

The burning question is how, during an overall 14+ second progressive collapse, you get 2.25 secs near freefall.

CD is obviously a cop out, since it doesn't fit the observed collapse (E to W). But it is a convenient handle for people to hang on to, I'll give it that. Plus it has the 'Men in Black' factor as a huge paranoia bonus.

But what really happened?

alienentity · 2nd March 2009, 12:32 AM

One quick note OT, since I just joined the forum:

I want to send out a message of humble gratitude and respect to Mr. James Randi, whose works I have followed for at least 20 years. Even though he fled his native country he's still a great guy. (I'm Canadian, y'see).

Also props to Gravy for his tireless and valuable work on 9-11 misinformation..err 'truth'.

Sword_Of_Truth · 2nd March 2009, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by alienentity

ElMondoHummus - well said. I should point out that Chandler's exact words were 'As for all the name calling, which is where this thread seems to be heading, I'm not into that. I'm out-a-here. Bye. '
And he accused me of a double-standard, because I said I'd wager that if he had a PhD SE, he'd be singing a different tune. To be clear I was referring to his insistence on CD, and that 2.25 s of 'Freefall means controlled demolition, pure and simple. That means we're dealing with a crime and a criminal cover-up.'

And he did call NIST liars, and he did attack you for being "just a musician". For someone to wade in slinging mud like that, to turn and cite "name calling" as his reason for declining further debate is intellectually dishonest, hypocritical and downright childish behavior.

And as far as the "just a musician" thing goes, he completely misses the point. If he wants to prove his claims, he doesn't need to disprove the work of a musician or a New York tour guide or a public access cable TV show host. He needs to defeat all of the above AND John Gross and Shyam Sunder.

It doesn't matter who he argues about WTC7 with, it will always be Sunder and Gross's work he is going up against. But if he waltzes into a room and immediately starts tossing out calls of "liar" and "dry-labbing" but can't handle it when it starts coming back, then he isn't even going to get off the ground.

twinstead · 2nd March 2009, 10:29 AM

Dry-labbing?

alienentity · 2nd March 2009, 02:35 PM

Further to Chandler's faulty analysis (not his credentials), I have investigated his claim that motion observed early on is an artifact, and not the start of anything. I am authoring a new clip shortly to demonstrate that the motion observed is no artifact, but is the start of parapet wall collapse.

Mr. Chandler is now backpedaling slightly, writing to me that 'My point doesn't depend on whether or not there was some precursor motion. The motion you may or may not be seeing is not the start of collapse by any definition. The east penthouse has already collapsed. There is ongoing movement in the building. It is not the start of anything. It's only significance is it yields a 5.4 second collapse to match NIST's model.'

So he's admitting that the start point was an arbitrary assignment anyway, and that the only distinction to be made is exactly where this all starts. This is after he has gone after NIST hammer and tong about this exact start point.....
He now is trying to claim that it is all irrelevant.....which would also include his analysis, wouldn't it?
The reason he retreats is because he realizes that I have disproven his criticism (on that matter) in a fair and unmistakable way. At least I've managed to make a slight impression on his thinking. It's a start.

Sword_Of_Truth · 2nd March 2009, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by twinstead

Dry-labbing?

Drylabbing: The faking of test results, especially when the test itself has never been conducted.

Chandler claims this is what the NIST has done, though he provides no proof other than his own religious zealotry on behalf of the twoof movement.

25th February 2009, 10:31 PM	#121
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	Originally Posted by JSSTyger No...the first 2.25 seconds was very near perpendicular to the ground....see GldBr's veoh video What? you believe it should have fallen over like an oak tree with an axeman's notch in it? Thats absurd. Can you run the math by me again that shows how it should hinge over at the bottom? You know the south side damage had nothing to do with collapse initiation.
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

25th February 2009, 10:34 PM	#122
JSSTyger Scholar Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 103	OK I'm leaving the forum for the night. This just so not cool they actually created a thread to hound a guy who uses REAL physics to support his theory on WTC 7. Just goes to show that, when dealing with the govt., if the means doesn't support the desired conclusion...the means is invalid. I mean Chandler repeatedly explained himself throughout his vids. He was scientifically accurate in his methodology. He showed and explained his data. I suppose you hate him just because hes on the "opposite side" but...what more could he have done??? He had "zero" budget. NIST had 40 million. Maybe NIST's presentation was better Shyam Sunder: "gravity is uhh the uhh duhh loading function uhh which applies duhh to all umm structures duhh on this uhhh planet...and not just....uhhh at ground zero.....free fall requires no structural resistance...which is NOT the case (oops I guess yes it WAS the case uhhh for a third of the collapse)" You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST
JSSTyger Scholar Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 103

25th February 2009, 10:45 PM	#124
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,116	Originally Posted by JSSTyger OK I'm leaving the forum for the night. Have a nice night and hopefully when you wake up you'll realize that you haven't presented one scintilla of intelligent information, will apologize for wasting everyone's time and promise to go to school so you can be a productive contributor to society when you grow up.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

25th February 2009, 11:39 PM	#125
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,945	Originally Posted by JSSTyger I often wonder why you people don't use your analytic abilities to analyze NIST's theory. Is this not the official theory? Back it up!! I'll admit...its got to be quite hard now that NIST has abandoned the fuel oil tanks and long span floor truss theories. We told you that stuff was BS all along but you guys follow NIST wherever it takes you. NIST coulda told you that the building did jumping jacks before it fell, create a visual model of it, and then you would applaud them for their "breakthrough" in engineering excellence. Have you learned why NIST studied WTC7? Not to placate the 911Truth delusions (no). You can spew implications of delusions all you want about NIST and 911 built on hearsay, false information and fantasy. But you can't refute NIST conclusions, or the big picture. Why does 911Truth lack the knowledge and skills to do this? Because after 7 years 911Truth is evidence free. What is the problem, can’t 911Truth grasp the complex plot of 19 terrorists, 1 – kill pilots 2 – fly planes into buildings Much too complex so they make up delusions to sell books and DVDs to people too challenged to research 911 on their own and would rather regurgitate failed ideas based on hearsay, false information, and fantasy. Like your squibs, the most idiotic idea on 911 ever! (maybe nukes and beam weapons beat it) I have some questions you need to ask 911Truth and yourself. Where is 911Truth’s Pulitzer Prize for exposing the biggest inside job in history the destruction of the WTC complex by whoever 911Truth delusions say it was? Where is their evidence? Why do a minuscule number of engineers (any type of engineer you want) support the delusions of 911Truth; at 0.001 percent? Wowzer, are you one of those 0.001 percent engineers, or are you just supporting their failed ideas? Originally Posted by JSSTyger You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST No one hates the guy, his delusions of CD is stupid. Using knowledge and sound judgment to simple to see he is spewing conclusions that are delusions. You may hate him when you see how little knowledge it takes to refute his failed conclusions. I hope you are not wasting time to prove he is right when you can just go to the nearest TV station, radio station and break this Pulitzer Prize story! Tell me you are taking action and not arguing with people who have read all of NIST, engineers, pilots, ATC, mathematicians, history majors, young people who have learned to be skeptical of all, and other professional people and laypeople who post here and are not only skeptical of the official story but also skeptical of 911Truth who have been found to be delusion experts. Most of the people posting at JREF are skeptical of stuff! I wonder why? Gee, I get this feeling of skepticism on each page here for some reason. But you support failed conclusions with no skepticism, without study, without evidence to support your contrary view. Where as the 19 terrorists left evidence, something the delusion of 911Truth failed to do – leave evidence. Prove to me fires do not destroy buildings and I will convert, but I cheated, I have seen steel buildings fail in fire quicker than wood buildings. And I found this out at before I was a teenager just by observation. My engineering degrees only make me overqualified to plant my peach trees and roses, and build my pergola for my grapes. No one hates the messenger they hate his anti-intellectual conclusions (...). In the USA we let people spew hearsay, false information, and fantasy as if it were true. You need to gain knowledge to sort out the delusional conclusion this guy has. You need to stop believing everything you find on the Internet and have more skepticism. Look up there at the top left… see … you have fallen into a nest of skeptics and I need to work on the friendly part and stop being too lively. Did you fail to bring your skepticism with you, and your science?
	Last edited by beachnut; 26th February 2009 at 12:03 AM.

26th February 2009, 04:33 AM	#126
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,967	This is better; you're restricting yourself to points about the collapse. Originally Posted by JSSTyger All I was doing in my original post here was eliminating "plausible" theories...not all of them NIST theories...but any possible theory you all could come up with. No, all you were doing was stating unsupported incredulity at specific details. Everyone else: Let's refrain from snark about him "eliminating "plausible" theories". His context makes clear that he really meant what he thinks are implausible explanations, and there's enough in what he posts to go after substance rather than nitpick about a simple error in word choice. Originally Posted by JSSTyger I know what NIST says about ohhh thermal expansion and column 79 blowing out on level 13 and somehow the internal structure just ripped itself away from the facade and lead the collapse while the facade was standing for a few seconds. Yes I know the NIST fairy tale. I have seen the model where the frame just twists and wilts. And the whole north and west faces of the facade shows no signs, no cracks, no buckled columns or beams punching through them...minimal broken windows. I mean...not to be offensive but this is all just common sense. Thermal expansion is a well established problem with steel; hence the need for fireproofing and construction standards that take it into account. You need to actually demonstrate what you think is wrong with the model. Simply calling it a "fairy tale" is not a refutation of it. Not in the absence of arguments demonstrating the points that are incorrect, and most definitely not in the presence of long falsified claims like "squibs". Originally Posted by JSSTyger You can call me a loon..if that makes you feel better. But this not a blind belief. And I do have credentials that,in the very least, lend me partial credibility. No one has to call you anything. Arguing explosives establishes what sort of thinker you are without any action from us. And it doesn't matter what your "credentials" are, your statements evaporate whatever credibility your credentials supposedly establish. It's never about "who" anyone is; the crux of the argument is either supported or refuted by what they say. And so far, what little you've said is merely a repeat of the same distortions presented for years now. Take your mention of squibs: That's been bounced off of members of this forum since before I've been here. When someone says "squibs", I just direct them to these sites: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/squibs%3F2 http://debunking911.com/overp.htm http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html ... and until those points are addressed, there's nothing more to say about it.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

25th February 2009, 10:40 PM	#123
TexasJack Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 10,881	Originally Posted by JSSTyger You can call me a loon..if that makes you feel better. But this not a blind belief. And I do have credentials that,in the very least, lend me partial credibility. As opposed to NIST, who possess credentials that give them full credibility.

26th February 2009, 04:44 AM	#127
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,272	Originally Posted by JSSTyger 1) 6) How does a building being structurally damaged and having fires refute demolition???? For a few reasons: 1) If the building was prepped beforehand, how did the demolitions survive the damage and fires? Would they not have exploded from impact and intense heat? 2) If the building was prepped beforehand, how were they able to account for the damage to be able to still demolish the building? Changing the strcture with damage would change the dynamics of any planned demolition. 3) If the charges were set after the tower collapse, how did a team get in covertly? 4) If the charges were set after tower collapse, how did they analyze the building so quickly and know where to set the charges? These are just a few reasons off the top of my head, and there are probably some I am missing.
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,272	__________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

26th February 2009, 07:53 AM	#128
GStan Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Wheeling, WV Posts: 1,342	Originally Posted by Disbelief For a few reasons: 1) If the building was prepped beforehand, how did the demolitions survive the damage and fires? Would they not have exploded from impact and intense heat? 2) If the building was prepped beforehand, how were they able to account for the damage to be able to still demolish the building? Changing the strcture with damage would change the dynamics of any planned demolition. 3) If the charges were set after the tower collapse, how did a team get in covertly? 4) If the charges were set after tower collapse, how did they analyze the building so quickly and know where to set the charges? These are just a few reasons off the top of my head, and there are probably some I am missing. 5) Complete absence of sounds consistent with demolition charges. 6) Complete absence of materials in the rubble pile consistent with demolition charges. 7) Complete absence of any belief by the closest witnesses to the collapse (firefighters) of possibility of a demolition.
	__________________ On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling "Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate

26th February 2009, 08:01 AM	#129
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by JSSTyger such strong words. Do you always jump to such quick stupid conclusions? Why swear? No not always, just feeling particularly annoyed by ignorance and paranoia today, so I decided to lash out. You were the recipient. The swearing, well why not? TAM

26th February 2009, 08:02 AM	#130
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by JSSTyger There is no "strawman" about the demolition of WTC 7. I've challenged many people many times to give an example of a solid object collapsing in on itself under its own weight straight down and I've never gotten a legitimate answer. Structural mechanics just doesn't work that way. You just can't have a building thats supposedly gouged on one side fall straight down. SO prove it. Show us your own calculations that provide proof that WTC7 could not have collapsed as NIST has theorized/proposed. Thanks in advance. TAM

26th February 2009, 08:06 AM	#131
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by JSSTyger All I was doing in my original post here was eliminating "plausible" theories...not all of them NIST theories...but any possible theory you all could come up with. I know what NIST says about ohhh thermal expansion and column 79 blowing out on level 13 and somehow the internal structure just ripped itself away from the facade and lead the collapse while the facade was standing for a few seconds. Yes I know the NIST fairy tale. I have seen the model where the frame just twists and wilts. And the whole north and west faces of the facade shows no signs, no cracks, no buckled columns or beams punching through them...minimal broken windows. I mean...not to be offensive but this is all just common sense. You can call me a loon..if that makes you feel better. But this not a blind belief. And I do have credentials that,in the very least, lend me partial credibility. It doesn't make me feel better, but can I still call you one? I mean you come here, and you inform us that a large group of engineers trained in the relative fields are wrong, and that you know the answer, yet you neither provide evidence through scientific experiment or calculation that they are wrong, nor anything close to a logical or sensible alternative with likewise calculations. So yah, Loon is a pretty good title. Please provide us the credentials, for curiosity, but then, to win the big prize, use your knowledge, which allowed you to obtain those credentials, to show us where and how NIST got it wrong. TAM

26th February 2009, 08:08 AM	#132
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by JSSTyger OK I'm leaving the forum for the night. This just so not cool they actually created a thread to hound a guy who uses REAL physics to support his theory on WTC 7. Just goes to show that, when dealing with the govt., if the means doesn't support the desired conclusion...the means is invalid. I mean Chandler repeatedly explained himself throughout his vids. He was scientifically accurate in his methodology. He showed and explained his data. I suppose you hate him just because hes on the "opposite side" but...what more could he have done??? He had "zero" budget. NIST had 40 million. Maybe NIST's presentation was better Shyam Sunder: "gravity is uhh the uhh duhh loading function uhh which applies duhh to all umm structures duhh on this uhhh planet...and not just....uhhh at ground zero.....free fall requires no structural resistance...which is NOT the case (oops I guess yes it WAS the case uhhh for a third of the collapse)" You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST SO you have reduced yourself to making fun of someones speech patterns, and still remain on your soapbox condemning others for how they treat people? There is a word for that...look it up if you don't know what it is. TAM

26th February 2009, 08:20 AM	#133
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,520	Originally Posted by JSSTyger You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST How so? Did you actually read (and understand) their report? Quote: You I know what NIST says about ohhh thermal expansion and column 79 blowing out on level 13 and somehow the internal structure just ripped itself away from the facade and lead the collapse while the facade was standing for a few seconds. Yes I know the NIST fairy tale. I have seen the model where the frame just twists and wilts. And the whole north and west faces of the facade shows no signs, no cracks, no buckled columns or beams punching through them...minimal broken windows. I mean...not to be offensive but this is all just common sense. Apparently not!
	__________________ 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

26th February 2009, 09:07 AM	#134
TexasJack Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 10,881	Originally Posted by JSSTyger Shyam Sunder: "gravity is uhh the uhh duhh loading function uhh which applies duhh to all umm structures duhh on this uhhh planet...and not just....uhhh at ground zero.....free fall requires no structural resistance...which is NOT the case (oops I guess yes it WAS the case uhhh for a third of the collapse)" You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST FYI here is Sunder's education, since you think you are qualified to speak on this subject, can you remotely come close to that? Or more importantly, can you refute the scientific conclusions he and the NIST determined? Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, B. Tech., (Honors), Civil Engineering, 1977 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, S.M., Civil Engineering, 1979 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sc.D., Structural Engineering, 1981

26th February 2009, 10:43 PM	#135
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	WTC7 was the smoking gun that brought me to examine the "911 was an inside job" claim. And after NIST released their final report, I am even more convinced that WTC7 remains the smoking gun. It is so f'n obvious, yet so F'n irrelevant these days it isn't even funny. Move on people. Only your kids kids will be able to examine it with an open mind.
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

26th February 2009, 11:15 PM	#136
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by Sizzler WTC7 was the smoking gun that brought me to examine the "911 was an inside job" claim. And after NIST released their final report, I am even more convinced that WTC7 remains the smoking gun. It is so f'n obvious, yet so F'n irrelevant these days it isn't even funny. Move on people. Only your kids kids will be able to examine it with an open mind. How times change... Originally Posted by Sizzler I recently came across a post by Newtons Bit that made a whole lot of sense. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...50&postcount=4 With this in mind, I hereby state that I will abandon the CD hypothesis if no serious challenge to NIST's WTC7 report is put forth. Oh well. For the record, I did enjoy some of your commentary, and at times you were quite open minded. I have a new policy, however, that I need to refer you to. Thanks for your understanding.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

26th February 2009, 11:26 PM	#137
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,945	Originally Posted by Sizzler WTC7 was the smoking gun that brought me to examine the "911 was an inside job" claim. And after NIST released their final report, I am even more convinced that WTC7 remains the smoking gun. It is so f'n obvious, yet so F'n irrelevant these days it isn't even funny. Move on people. Only your kids kids will be able to examine it with an open mind. Where is your evidence? The only smoking gun WTC7 represents is that fire destroys buildings; old story and the moronic delusions of 911Truth have proven to be failed for over 7 years. The best we can expect from 911Truth is more moronic rehashing of their old failed ideas. Does anyone take physics in high school anymore? I see that no child left behind has failed as the left behinds have followed the idiotic rants of 911Truth. The only smoking guy for you is you have failed to use evidence to make a rational conclusion, and you must seek out knowledge and use sound judgment to do better. My grandkids already understand reality and will not fall for delusions based on hearsay, lies and fantasy as you have. 911Truth = failure (no Pulitzer Prize for the doltish ideas of 911Truth) It is so obvious you missed it and got it backwards. Same old 911Truth.

27th February 2009, 04:26 AM	#138
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,272	Originally Posted by Sizzler WTC7 was the smoking gun that brought me to examine the "911 was an inside job" claim. And after NIST released their final report, I am even more convinced that WTC7 remains the smoking gun. It is so f'n obvious, yet so F'n irrelevant these days it isn't even funny. Move on people. Only your kids kids will be able to examine it with an open mind. If this is true, maybe you can start with post 127.
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,272	__________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

27th February 2009, 10:25 PM	#139
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by davidschandler48 This is David Chandler speaking. A.) Is it true that you are only a high school teacher? B.) I have been personally amused the full on retreat from the claim of "free fall speed" that the truthers have been chanting endlessly for nearly 4 years. All the whooping and hollering over the so called "admission" by the NIST that WTC7 came down at free fall acceleration for a portion of the collapse is actually a surrendering of precious ground. The truth movement isn't moving forward, they are falling back and licking thier wounds. C.) I don't believe that you truly feel that the NIST has been "dry labbing" or willfully and knowingly falsifying data. I don't know the proper avenues by which to bring up a complaint of professional misconduct by the NIST team, but I'm fairly certain it doesn't involve whining about it on youtube. D.) What have you done with David Chandlers 1 through 47?

28th February 2009, 06:36 PM	#140
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	Hi Kiddies, This is my first post in JREF forums. Not really important, but a small milestone... Regarding David Chandler, I came across his vids recently, and I thought - is this true? Are NIST committing fraud, 'dry-labing'? I paid some attention to the claims and decided to test the 5.4 sec vs 3.9 claim. I made some annotated versions of Chandler's vids, 'cause he doesn't allow comments on his channel (coward). The first is titled 'NIST WTC 7 (Chandler debunked) 1' on my youtube channel My own new vid, with my analysis is 'WTC 7 NIST Debunked Pt 1 (Hi Res)' watch?v=bKgtmnf63Nw (I don't think I can post direct links yet). You'll have to google or search in youtube. sorry. My conclusion: Chandler was wrong. 5.4 sec stands as the correct time from observable collapse of the top floors. Please check my videos and pass on if you likey. Bitchslap those wascally twoofers often and hard, I say!

28th February 2009, 06:49 PM	#141
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	welcome to the forum alienidentity. TAM

28th February 2009, 07:02 PM	#143
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	very nice video. Good job. TAM

28th February 2009, 07:15 PM	#144
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,692	Originally Posted by alienentity Hi Kiddies, This is my first post in JREF forums. Not really important, but a small milestone... Regarding David Chandler, I came across his vids recently, and I thought - is this true? Are NIST committing fraud, 'dry-labing'? I paid some attention to the claims and decided to test the 5.4 sec vs 3.9 claim. I made some annotated versions of Chandler's vids, 'cause he doesn't allow comments on his channel (coward). The first is titled 'NIST WTC 7 (Chandler debunked) 1' on my youtube channel My own new vid, with my analysis is 'WTC 7 NIST Debunked Pt 1 (Hi Res)' watch?v=bKgtmnf63Nw (I don't think I can post direct links yet). You'll have to google or search in youtube. sorry. My conclusion: Chandler was wrong. 5.4 sec stands as the correct time from observable collapse of the top floors. Please check my videos and pass on if you likey. Bitchslap those wascally twoofers often and hard, I say! 15 posts will give you the option in the future Looks like your vid got me to dust off my youtube account and comment...
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,692	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D

28th February 2009, 07:40 PM	#145
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	Welcome to JREF alienentity Wow. I did not notice before how the west top corner of 7 pulled towards the east as the penthouse on the east started to drop. You can see it at about 5.30 in the video when you roll the clip back and forth.. So something is shrinking the width of the building from east to west. Exactly as would be expected with a cascading collapse of interior columns towards the west.as #79 failed. This is even before the kink becomes pronounced.
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

28th February 2009, 11:44 PM	#146
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	Thank you all. If you watch my vid on my channel, you'll also notice that David Chandler and I had a bit of 'back and forth' over the last 24 hrs. I'm glad he took notice (that was part of my motivation) but I told him frankly that he isn't behaving like a scientist - I don't see a problem with constructive criticism of NIST's collapse model, but he goes way beyond that. Hence he deserves a good swift kick in the pills, IMHO. To Beachnut - I used imovie, and I can burn to DVD. There are two resolutions of my video available, the one linked to here is Hi Res. If you want something even better, I'll put it up on my channel for you. Lemme know. AW Smith noticed the 'oscillation' of the NW corner - I wondered if it was an video aberration but I think you're probably right about shrinkage. I also noticed a pronounced change in the windows below the E penthouse after it collapses - they appear lighter. NIST seems to think this is a change in reflection caused by the upper wall moving, but I wonder if it could be skylight showing thru empty space. It could also have been the worklights from Larry Silverstein's Fire Department demolition crew. That's more likely.....

1st March 2009, 12:45 AM	#147
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,539	Nice job, AE, I have posted this at SLC.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

1st March 2009, 01:04 AM	#148
UNLoVedRebel Hard Knocks Doctorate Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: School of Hard Knocks Posts: 5,512	Great vid! Chandler's methodology of trying to detect motion frame x frame shows a complete lack of understanding in human perception. Horizontal progressive failure confirmed yet again.
	__________________ "All the Officialiers here typically have rancid alien avatars or else some kind of violent military-type avatar. Once again affirming my contention that 9/11 Officialiers are the most violent, murderous, group of people in the United States. Both statistically confirmed, but also anecdotally affirmed in almost every case of active pro-Officialers." - FloydGoethe

1st March 2009, 11:15 AM	#149
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Chandler on alienentitys youtube page: "Sunder and the NIST are all liars, alienentity is just a musician and now I'm leaving because I can't handle all the name-calling here". God help us all if the twoof movement ever selects a grown up as its patron saint du jour.

1st March 2009, 11:26 AM	#150
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	That is funny. So a SCHOOL TEACHER (IIRC) uses an ad hominem against a musician (one that alienidentity could easily throw back at the SCHOOL TEACHER), shouts from the rooftop that they "are all liars", then pokes his tail between his legs and slinks away. And this man is in charge of teaching children. Not setting a very good example. TAM

1st March 2009, 12:00 PM	#151
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	Originally Posted by T.A.M. That is funny. So a SCHOOL TEACHER (IIRC) uses an ad hominem against a musician (one that alienidentity could easily throw back at the SCHOOL TEACHER), shouts from the rooftop that they "are all liars", then pokes his tail between his legs and slinks away. And this man is in charge of teaching children. Not setting a very good example. TAM Chandler should start a group. school teachers for 911 truth. Hes not the only teacher to make bad decisions as shown by the category list to the right
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

1st March 2009, 12:10 PM	#152
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,692	Originally Posted by alienentity I also noticed a pronounced change in the windows below the E penthouse after it collapses - they appear lighter. NIST seems to think this is a change in reflection caused by the upper wall moving, but I wonder if it could be skylight showing thru empty space. Actually from the videos I've seen, as the east penthouse collapsed into the interior numerous windows started to break from the top to the bottom up to the point that the main exterior wall began to fail. I interpreted it as breakage with zoomed in versions but through youtube the resolutions' shoddy at best. Regardless I assume you noticed this through the same videos that I've seen. My understanding is that it was effect of the collapse progression in the very early stages
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,692	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D

1st March 2009, 12:16 PM	#153
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,967	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth Chandler on alienentitys youtube page: "Sunder and the NIST are all liars, alienentity is just a musician and now I'm leaving because I can't handle all the name-calling here". God help us all if the twoof movement ever selects a grown up as its patron saint du jour. That's 99% a pure, classic ad-hominem attack, with the remaining 1% being left off because he merely implied, not directly stated, that alienentity was wrong because he's a musician. Otherwise, it's classic. Again, as everyone who's a regular here already knows: It's not who the person is, it's what they say. I don't tote Gravy's page because his tour guide expertise puts him in the midst of New York, I do so because what he's put together stands on its own merit. No less. Similarly, I've moved away (yes, I did often commit the mistake in the past, and occasionally slip these days) from denigrating Steven Jones (physicist) and DRG (theologian) on the basis of their non-expertise on the subject. It made sense at the time, but that's the trap of ad-hominem: It makes sense in a relative way, but it's the absolute issue of logical support that matters. And their arguments do not fail because of their education or career, they fail on their own lack of merit. The only thing salvaging them seems to be the academic authority of the authors, and even that has been rapidly eroding as time goes by. At any rate, that's not a good showing by Chandler. If he's got a counter, he needs to state it in some way other than simple denigration.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 1st March 2009 at 12:17 PM. Reason: Typo: Tis spelled "classic", not "classis" :-S

1st March 2009, 11:55 PM	#154
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	ElMondoHummus - well said. I should point out that Chandler's exact words were 'As for all the name calling, which is where this thread seems to be heading, I'm not into that. I'm out-a-here. Bye. ' And he accused me of a double-standard, because I said I'd wager that if he had a PhD SE, he'd be singing a different tune. To be clear I was referring to his insistence on CD, and that 2.25 s of 'Freefall means controlled demolition, pure and simple. That means we're dealing with a crime and a criminal cover-up.' So, to be clear, I questioned his credentials to 1) do forensic video analysis (is that the correct term?) 2) make definitive statements about CD and WTC 7 physics? Hell yeah! He has training in physics... Doesn't have very much to do with his 'truther' stance though..... I find it both disturbing and humorous (a combination which is more palatable after a couple of single malts) that he can look at a detailed critique of his timing and ask me why I'm focusing on his credentials and not the facts. Hard facts are not the strong suit of 9-11 truthers. And they HATE to be reminded of that... So, no ad Hummusnems are really needed.

2nd March 2009, 12:25 AM	#155
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	So what's your best working theory about the collapse? The burning question is how, during an overall 14+ second progressive collapse, you get 2.25 secs near freefall. CD is obviously a cop out, since it doesn't fit the observed collapse (E to W). But it is a convenient handle for people to hang on to, I'll give it that. Plus it has the 'Men in Black' factor as a huge paranoia bonus. But what really happened?

2nd March 2009, 12:32 AM	#156
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	One quick note OT, since I just joined the forum: I want to send out a message of humble gratitude and respect to Mr. James Randi, whose works I have followed for at least 20 years. Even though he fled his native country he's still a great guy. (I'm Canadian, y'see). Also props to Gravy for his tireless and valuable work on 9-11 misinformation..err 'truth'.