911truthncDotOrg Debates gadget133
David Chandler's Analysis of The Events of September 11, 2001
Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job
By David Chandler
The events of 9/11 were huge. The body of evidence that the administration, or other agencies within the US government, were involved is also huge. The problem with summarizing the information is that the scale of the operation and its cover-up are so vast. Finding smoking guns is like picking up litter on a field. It's hard to move in a straight line. It is difficult to create a simple narrative.
My personal questioning of the events of 9/11 began when my sister went to a 9/11 conference and brought back books, DVDs, and enthusiasm. I watched the DVDs and became especially fascinated with one clip where the North Tower appeared to be literally erupting as it fell. One streamer caught my eye because I was able to follow its trajectory. I did some measurements right on the TV screen and estimated that the horizontal ejection velocity of that stream of debris was over 60 mi/hr. This hooked me. I later analyzed the same video clip with the Physics Toolkit software and found the horizontal component of velocity for that stream to be in excess of 70 mi/hr. (YouTube: HighSpeed Ejection from WTC1) These ejections of material were from high in the building, which seemed inconsistent with purely gravitational collapse.
Labels: gadget
posted by 911truthnc at 2:23 PM
30 Comments:
Subject:
David Chandler - I tried bloke. Sorry. This was ludicrous.
Date:
Jun 08, 2009
Message:
Before I post me comments, you question about steel beams being ejected into other buildings. It is called kinetic energy. The collapse of the towers had a shit load of kinetic energy. This also explains why so much of the building was rendered to dust.
Anyway. Here is my post in regards to David Chandler.
You're not going to like it. I think the man is a... Well, I can't tell you what I think. This is such a shame that people pin their hopes on someone such as him.
Anyway, here is my post...
Refuting David Chandler
I will conduct this on a paragraph by paragraph dialectic format i.e. review each paragraph by Chandler and answer and/or supply evidence to support or debunk his claim.
Paragraph 1:
He has started his investigation with a clear outcome already formulated i.e. that the US government was complicit in the events on Sept 11th 2001.
The rationale behind this kind of rhetoric is to place people into a preconceived frame of mind so as to enable the reader to be guided through the writers thought process instead of being clear minded enough to make their own decision. This kind of writing is dissuaded in the academic community for that exact reason. Information must be given so as to show no bias towards an idea or concept.
Gadget - I see you must have put some effort in to message.
Let's use my profile page for the our public debate
Let's look at your analysis a paragraph at a time. One point at a time to avoid the hyperbole.
Is this the document you are referencing?
http://911speakout.org/WhyIAmConvinced.pdf
Yes, this is the document that you directed me to.
Please continue.
Here is everything that I wrote.
You can go through paragraph by paragraph if you like and tell me where I am incorrect.
However, before you do, I would like you to know that I am all for a new investigation. My problem lay in the credibility of any new investigation. If people, who are proven liars and deceivers, are the driving force behind the new investigation, than I can only say that I would be as big a skeptic of any new investigation as you seem to be for the NIST investigation.
David Chandler is a liar and misrepresents himself, or at the least lets others misrepresent his credentials and does nothing to stop it. It is reprehensible that someone such as himself should be allowed anywhere near a new investigation. He has shown that his methodology is bellow par, his scientific knowledge is below par and his ability to block out bias is non existent.
OK... Please discuss the reply I posted on YouTube if you wish.
I am a bit busy. Give me time to respond appropriately.
fair enough, you gave me plenty of time. I know what you mean by busy. Am trying to do 50million things at once myself.
"He has started his investigation with a clear outcome already formulated i.e. that the US government was complicit in the events on Sept 11th 2001."
As a scientist, one would do research. Formulate an hypothesis from the research. Then present the conclusions one reaches.
This is exactly the method Chandler used. He is stating his conclusions up front. Thus being straight forward in his presentation.
I personally think your comments show your bias. on this topic.
I do not want to debate your tactics of analysis.
Let's stick the conclusions and analysis of Chandler's research.
That's all for now.
Do not feel you have to follow every one of my comments with a rebuttal. It is my turn to share my opinions with you. I have your opinions already. I do not want this debate to digress into a mud slinging battle.
Save your rebuttal to debate facts that Chandler's presents and that you disagree with.
I'll be back tomorrow for Paragraph 2.
I think since we are trying have a gentleman's debate.
Let's introduce ourselves.
I am 911truthnc. My occupation is Software Engineering. I am a senior software engineer. I have been working in the networks, telecommunications, and e-commerce industries for over 15 years.
I have a masters in computer science. I have taken advanced math, statistics, and physics.
I am a certified member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
5 top reasons to suspect controlled demolition:
1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph
You can call me Brad.
I have completed my Bachelor of Arts in History Politics and Philosophy and I am currently studying communications.
I am 35 and have worked in construction since I was 16 until 25 through my family business. I quit the industry due to an accident and had to retrain.
At the age of 28 I became a Fraud Investigator
At 30 I Started University and have worked at a steel mill for BHP part time (3-4 days a week) to pay my way through. (sounds silly, but pays extrodinarily compared to office work. Plus, I just drive an excavator around).
I am currently researching for a documentary on conspiracy theories and the psychological aspects connected with believing in conspiracy theories. I came across the 911 conspiracy theories through this. At first I thought there might be something to it.
Your top 5 reasons for believing in controlled demolitions:
1)Are we talking about the whole building (if we concentrate on just one of the twin towers) coming down or just the facade? Because I have seen multiple footage taken that clearly shows parts of the structure still standing up to 20 seconds after the collapse. Chandler also states that it was free fall, not "near" and that it was as if in a "vacuum". He is incorrect.
2)If we assume that it fell to the NIST specifications, the debris pattern fits.
3)Once again, if we assume that the NIST report is correct, i.e.that the floor rafters (it always annoys me that people say the core beams had to melt. This is not what the NIST report states. The floors buckled which pulled laterally outwards from the core beams and cause stress that had been uncalcullated during construction) weakened, pulled against the joints and gave way. The weight from the building would cause catastrophic collapse.
4)When concrete and steel are stressed beyond capacity, they explode. Have you ever heard a prestressed concrete slab give way? It is very loud and likened to an explosion. I have also studied the effects of time on memory, there is something called emotional investment. As time goes on, the memory becomes "clearer". If you look towards the firefighters in the firehouse talking about the building going pop pop pop pop just like an explosion, you will note that they don't talk about explosions prior, just during. I have also heard raw footage of the buildings coming downs, and can honestly state that there is not a single explosion to be heard.
5) Once again, if you assume that the NIST report is correct, the energy release from the toppling buildings would have been sufficient to do this. I have watched floors collapse and have been rendered quite astonished as to the power and energy that this kind of event releases.
Also,
Science is not conducted with a clear outcome already in place. This method is called dry lab. An investigation into something must run as such:
Observe and occurrence.
Hypothesis as to how the occurrence happened.
Formulate experiments to replicate the occurrence.
Observe the experiments and replicate the experiments.
Give conclusions.
You should not bring politics into it. You should not work towards an outcome that only proves your hypothesis. You must consider all applications.
Paragraph 2:
This paragraph is quite straight forward. There is only one aspect that is of concern. Chandler states that These ejections of material are from high in the building, which seemed inconsistent with purely gravitational collapse.
Once again (second paragraph and he has already shown his bias twice) Chandler is giving a statement without backing that statement up with any empirical evidence. He is simply stating his own feelings and preconceptions of what a building should look like when gravitational collapse occurs.
The name of the paper "Why I Think ..."
This paper is the opinion of Chandler.
Here again your bias shows.
"These ejections of material were from high in the building, which seemed inconsistent with purely gravitational collapse. "
This statement is observation made Chandler.
This is a key point to the analysis. Your "shit of kinetic energy " claim does not hold weight because of this fact. More on that later.
I'll be back tomorrow.
What was the weight of a WTC Tower?
If you really want to get into the physics of the collapse of the WTC Twin Towers, sooner or later you will need to know the weight (or mass) of a WTC Tower, or at least a Tower block of 15 to 30 floors. After all, the potential energy of a structure ( = Mgh) and the kinetic energy of a falling block ( = 1/2 Mv^2) are both functions of mass…......See, for example, the calculations presented at :
http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html
If you search for published values of the mass of WTC 1 or 2, the number quoted is invariably close to 500,000,000 kg or 500,000 tonnes. But where does this number come from?
I have certainly never seen a detailed calculation of the mass of WTC 1 or 2; but there are plenty of references on the web for the weight of the materials used in the construction of the WTC Towers. For example, the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96,000,000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48,000,000 kg per Tower. I have also seen the weight of aluminum cladding reported to be 2,000,000 kg, and the weight of wallboard quoted at 8,000,000 kg per Tower, giving a total weight of structural materials of 154,000,000 kg per Tower.
Now let’s add in reasonable “guesstimates” for plumbing fixtures (5,000,000, kg), air conditioning (5,000,000 kg), electrical and telecommunication wiring (5,000,000 kg) and we have an additional 15,000,000 kg of structural mass that civil engineers always include as part of the “dead load” of a building. Thus combining all these contributions, we arrive at a weight, or dead load, of 169,000,000 kg for one WTC Tower. Surprisingly this accounts for only about 1/3rd of the oft-quoted 500,000,000 kg, so where is the missing mass?
The answer would appear to be in what civil engineers call the “live load” of the building, which in the case of one WTC Tower would have to be (500,000,000 - 169,000,000) kg or 331,000,000 kg, i.e., twice the dead load! We will show that this result leads to major problems …..
But first, let’s convert our load data in to more familiar engineering units based on floor areas. Building codes usually express loads in pounds per square foot (psf) or kilograms per square meter (kg/m^2). For example, the specification for a high live-load capacity floor is typically about 150 psf or 750 kg/m^2.
From the dimensions of a WTC Tower we estimate the available floor area per Tower was about 320,000 square meters. Hence, the live load was 331,000,000 kg divided by 320,000 m^2 which is equal to 1034 kg/m^2 or 212 psf. We see from the live load example given in the previous paragraph that 212 psf represents a very high live loading. But let’s look at just how high this load is…..
If the live loading within one WTC Tower really was 331,000,000 kg (more or less), that equals 3,009,091 kg per floor or about 3000 tonnes per floor!! I believe each WTC Tower employed about 15,000 people so we have an average of 136 people per floor. This means that each person working in the Twin Towers contributed about 22 tonnes of live load!!! That's an awful lot of office furniture, computers, printers, telephones..... or am I missing something?
3000 tonnes per floor?
how many floors above the impact zones? And your telling me that that could not have created enough kinetic energy?
Come on? It most definately would have.
Also, If it is just an opinion piece, why was your initial challenge to me "prove it wrong and you will win my heart". Is it just the opinion of a high school physics teacher that you are basing all your belief on? I took this a an actual scientific paper at first because you presented it as such. You presented it as PROOF.
As above, the person that was giving these figures was stipulating that the weight of the WTC were not as great as that often quoted 500,000 tonne. He the goes on to give a figure of 169,000 tonne. This gives each floor around 1537 tonne. Now, this is an undervalue. This is not including the Live load. This gives a total weight of around 46,000 tonne of material. I am pretty sure that that, once it starts to move, is enough to generate extraordinary amounts of energy. Enough to eject material the distances that you are referring to.
Paragraph 3:
No. The material does NOT keep pace with the falling building. This has been proven a number of times. The ejected material in fact does fall faster than the building. In some instances, material that was laterally ejected hit the ground before the main structure did. This in itself disproves the Free Fall argument that so commonly arises.
He is also talking about the waves of horizontal mass ejections that raced down the faces of the buildings. These were not in fact ejections of material. For an understanding of this, you must consider two scientific ideas. The first being the pulverization of material and the second being the liquidisation of that same material. The collapsing of three stories of concrete slabs does in fact lead to complete destruction or catastrophic destruction. As an example of this, I can only say that in 20 years of construction I have personally seen this happen. Where the top slab fails and collects the floors underneath, you find that the bottom two floors are nothing but dust and all that is left of the top slab are small (maybe a square meter) chunks. This is something I have seen in a three story building. I can only say that if it occurred in a 100 story building, even the top slab would be rendered to dust.
The second scientific idea you must consider is the liquidisation of material. When material is pulverized to a dust, whether by the collapse of a building or whether by other means such as volcanic eruption (called pyroclastic flows) , the dust will act with all the properties of a liquid. This is something that you can look up if you wish. I also have experience with this phenomenon through working for a steel mill and having to repair the filtration system. The dust particles act in exactly the same manner as liquid.
When you look at the video evidence that Chandler himself asks you to look at with these principles in mind, you may start to understand what it is you are looking at. Nothing short of the complete destruction of the building material and the liquidisation of that material so that it seems to run down the face of the building. In short, what you see are pyroclastic flows of building material racing down the face.
The squibs that he talks about are extremely consistent with the pancake theory, so I do not understand how or why he stipulates that it is not.
part 1
Chandler's Paragraph 3
My personal questioning of the events of 9/11 began when my sister went to a 9/11 conference and
brought back books, DVDs, and enthusiasm. I watched the DVDs and became especially fascinated
with one clip where the North Tower appeared to be literally erupting as it fell. One streamer caught
my eye because I was able to follow its trajectory. I did some measurements right on the TV screen
and estimated that the horizontal ejection velocity of that stream of debris was over 60 mi/hr. This
hooked me. I later analyzed the same video clip with the Physics Toolkit software and found the
horizontal component of velocity for that stream to be in excess of 70 mi/hr. (YouTube: High Speed
Ejection from WTC1) These ejections of material were from high in the building, which seemed
inconsistent with purely gravitational collapse.
gadget's 1st paragraph
Paragraph 3:
No. The material does NOT keep pace with the falling building. This has been proven a number of times. The ejected material in fact does fall faster than the building. In some instances, material that was laterally ejected hit the ground before the main structure did. This in itself disproves the Free Fall argument that so commonly arises.
Gadget - Your paragraph 3 analysis is actually paragraph 4.
Chandler's Paragraph 4
"Several videos of the collapse of both towers show waves of horizontal mass ejections that race down
the faces of the buildings, keeping pace with material falling outside the building, well in advance of
the actual collapse of the structure. (YouTube: South Tower Coming Down and Race with Gravity)
The ejections appear to come from many floors at the same time, which contradicts the idea that the
ejections consisted of debris blown out as the floors pancaked together. 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. "
gadget
Paragraph 3:
No. The material does NOT keep pace with the falling building. This has been proven a number of times.
Give me your sources.
This in itself disproves the Free Fall argument that so commonly arises.
This is an incorrect conclusion. All we need to prove is any period during the descend of the building. There was a period of free fall. Which NIST has admitted in the instance of WTC7.
If all your analysis here was correct. All of this could be proven in lab. NIST could not reproduce it.
Hence, your complete analysis here is totally unproven and only conjecture.
Chandler provides clips to support his claims.
All you offer is conjecture.
More later.
Yes, I think for the rest of my response I have incorrectly numbered the paragraphs. There are two paragraph three responses. I apologise for that. The second paragraph three is actually paragraph four. Paragraph four is paragraph five and so-forth.
Sources, page 298 of the NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers
WTC1
At 10:28:20 - Towers began to collapse - First exterior signs of collapse was at the 98th floor. Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before the building section began to fall under gravity
At 10:28:48 - Remaining portion of core collapsed.
My contention is that it took 28 seconds for the WTC1 to fall not 11 seconds or less.
On page 306 of the NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers.
WTC2
This is a little unclear on the behalf of the NIST report.
They state:
At 9:58:02 - Perimeter columns bowing inward on east face.
At 9:58:59 - WTC2 begins to collapse
At 9:58:59 (No, not a typo) - Building section above the impact area tilted to the east and south. Tilting appears to take place around Floor 82. Rotation of around 4 to 5 deg to the south and 20 to 25 deg occurred before the building section began to fall vertically.
I call that being very unclear. But largely due to the fact that there is little valuable footage for the first collapse (WTC2) or they just didn't bother (which is rather peculiar as they did previously with WTC1).
What I am trying to get at is that the building (WTC1) didn't come down at near free fall. If you accept 28 seconds from initiation to end, it is far from free fall.
Hence, ejected material definitely hit the ground prior to total collapse.
The clip that you can watch that clearly shows the core structure (up to around the 50th floor) is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soR38KtmKCo
Points to focus on:
The initiation of collapse takes place at 16 seconds in this video. At 37 seconds (in the above video) you can see one of the central core columns fall from the plume of smoke and dust. It falls to the left and towards WTC7. At 42 seconds you can see more columns fall between WTC7 And the plume of dust and smoke. This gives (just by using this video) a 26 second collapse sequence. Which, in relation to the NIST report, is a lot closer than 11 seconds, or near free fall that Chandler contends.
Also, as to your contention that NIST could prove it in the lab, I think with all the tools they have available that they most likely could. However they did not attempt to prove it because they were not trying to prove that it was controlled demolition (wrongly or rightly).
The only thing I will change about my statement is that instead of stating SOME ejected material hit the ground before the collapse sequence was complete, I will state that ALL ejected material hit the ground before the collapse sequence was complete. Hence, this disproves the free fall argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soR38KtmKCo
This is a good clip to discuss.
Let's take a minute to review this clip.
Between seconds 17-19 there is a huge fireball that is ejected from the side of the building.
Do you see what I am talking about?
Yes, I see it.
First, can you please elucidate on the explosive material that you think used?
Before we really talk about it.
Also, at some point, I want to clarify some things about what my beliefs are for the events of that day.
I have no theory on which type of explosives were used. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan from Journal for 9/11 Studies test concluded chemical traces of thermite.
Others have come to the same conclusions.
Jim Corr. Recently Open Chemical Physics Journal published a paper with the snappy title: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Centre Catastrophe.
Looking at the events on 9/11. I have personally concluded that 3 buildings collapsing on the same day , the first 3 in history and into their on footprints, is outside the realm of normal statistical probabilities.
Meaning it is impossible for 3 natural collapses to occur on the same day.
I have concluded that all 3 were bought down by explosive devices.
Hence from those conclusion I had to surmise that the main stream media, the 9/11 commission, congress and senate are all taking part in the cover up.
When one looks at the events: JFK assassination, RFK assassination, MLK assassination, Waco, OK City Bombing, WTC bombing 1993. The similarities in the news cover in the 1st 24 hours and after are strikingly similar.
The 1st 24 hours the news media reports the facts on ground. After that the media spin job begins to occur and broadcast from the 1st 24 hours are never seen again in the main stream media.
Soon after the event an official version of the events is created without much investigation and the main stream media parrots the official conclusions from that point onward.
What do you think is the cause the explosion seen at 17-19 seconds? What materials in the building would cause such an explosion just as the building begins to collapse?
Can you make any reasonable assumptions?
What I think the cause was? Blow out.
There were open fires and as the top floors collapsed into the effected floors it forced the flames to blow out. If we argue that, we are going to be going around in circles arguing when the top floors started to move and so forth. We will probably never agree on that.
I believe two planes hit the WTC 1 & two. I believe that these planes were allowed to hit WTC 1 & 2. I believe that WTC & fell because of excessive damage due to WTC 1 falling (the core columns as I pointed out earlier.
I will not subject myself to read the commission report (I know that is a very horrible thing to do intellectually) but I feel that the commission report is a white wash and mostly bullshit. I believe NIST did a rather decent job on the collapse itself. The NIST report, of course, does not involve itself in the political reasons as to why four planes were allowed to be hijacked and why three of those planes were allowed to hit their targets.
I cannot contend with idiots that say there were no planes. They should go and talk to the passengers families if they need real proof of that.
Thermite and thermate are two different things and the reality is that there were chemical compounds within the buildings (any large buildings really) that would leaves traces of those chemicals. I see no hard evidence of controlled demolition. I was a sapper, I know how thermite and thermate work. They do not "eject". There is very little "shock wave" caused from their use, hence why demolitions experts use them for controlled demolition. Hence, I look at ejected material and the first thing I see is the power of kinetic energy (not saying that there will never be evidence of CD, just there is no evidence at this moment). Also, the complexity of controlled demolition and setting it up is far too noticeable ie, people would have seen it, conspiracy gets too large and you have weakness of too many people knowing about it to stay quiet.
Have to go to work now.
I would also like to point you to another video which totally destroys the credibility of the buildings falling at "free fall" or "near free fall" speeds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGCFDoMmuA
Please watch this a few times at full speed.
We can except that the footage is real time.
At 9 seconds, the building starts to collapse. You can see the floors drop initially and you can even see the blow out of flames happen (which is interesting, because if the flames were small and could be controlled with a couple hoses like some truthers argue, the amount of blow out is just not consistent). So the building starts its collapse at 9 seconds, at 17 seconds, the last of the facade can be seen (centre bottom) leaving the view of the camera (which does not move up to this point).
That is 8 seconds. That only leaves 3 seconds for that material to fall from roughly the 80th floor, or higher, and reach the ground.
I cannot stress hard enough how wrong the free fall assumption is. Without the free fall assumption, most of the theories of controlled demolition are none sustainable.
let's continue here:
http://911truthnc.blogspot.com/2009/06/wtc1-collapse-from-hoboken.html
Post a Comment
<< Home