It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# David Chandler Hits it Home

page: 1
5
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:22 AM
These videos never get old. I often ask those who believe the official story to explain the anomalies within
the videos below. The response is either, "that video proves nothing", or a bunch of name calling followed
by changing the topic.

Is anyone able to offer an explanation for the debris which changes direction in mid air and begins to accelerate
in another direction? Please explain how gravity can accomplish such a task.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:23 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
Is anyone able to offer an explanation for the debris which changes direction in mid air and begins to accelerate
in another direction? Please explain how gravity can accomplish such a task.

Click the white arrow in the middle of the screen.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:50 AM
Are you kidding? The video is a complete failure and here is why:

1. The piece that Mr. Chandler describes as breaking apart in mid air is not even in view when the narrator
of that video is trying to compare the event. In fact, the piece that David Chandler refers to appears in your
video at 1:31.

You can see it breaking away from the upper section at 1:31 which is shown mid left of the frame. Had your
video continued to follow that piece, it would have been at the same sync'd frame as where David Chandler's
began.

Strike one.

2. With respect to 'free fall' calculations, your video author incorrectly computes free fall using a red line
and floor 94 with the top roof section interesecting the red line. What your video author fails to comprehend
is that the upper block is clearly rotating and not falling straight down.

Therefore you cannot calculate a gravitational linear drop toward earth and equate the same time of free fall
with a rotating object.

Strike 2.

3. At 4:00 of your video, the narrator once again fails to understand acceleration and the behaviour of aluminum
cladding when shot into the air.

The light weight cladding is ejected and thrown into the air and shoots upward as he describes. It then begins to
fall toward earth. At no point is that aluminum cladding acting like the projectile shown by David Chandler.

The piece of aluminum is acting like a paper plane thrown into the wind for sake of argument; it does not have
self propulsion as shown by David's projectile object. The aluminum cladding loses velocity as it climbs, then
stops before falling to earth.

The projectile object accelerates in a different axis instead of falling to earth.

In addition, that aluminum cladding is not producing an oxide tail of smoke!

Strike 3.

That video is totally useless and it highlights the lack of understanding for those who cling to it.

edit on 16-9-2010 by turbofan because: Spelling and brevity

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:33 PM

In addition, that aluminum cladding is not producing an oxide tail of smoke!

Don't you mean dust from from the exterior fire proofing.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:06 AM
Exterior fire proofing? They had fire proofing on the outside of the Twins?

Have you reconsidered all of the errors in that video of yours - especially the rotating top block with
respect to a linear descent timed for free fall? How obvious was that!?

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:23 AM

Yes it had external fireproofing. I thought you were suppose to be a know it all supper duper truther.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:13 AM

Fireproofing on the outside huh? To stop those firestorms, and space comets from setting the tower on fire?

Don't forget the other questions too! Do you still agree with the videos after I pointed out all of the flaws?

edit on 17-9-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:06 AM

The fire proofing is number 38 in the diagram. It is white premolded and is similar in consistency to plaster.

It is very visible in high quality photos of the collapse.

Collapse of wtc 1 & 2 ls 2/3 G. The debate is over. Didn't anyone tell you?

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:34 AM
Nope, nobody told me. It makes the collapse even more unrealistic due to fire.

So how about my other question: Do you still stick to the video you posted, or do you see the errors I pointed out?

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:42 AM

That pic also shows the difference in thickness of the outer 'mesh' columns. On the right is the thickest, at the bottom of the towers, and the left is the thinnest at the top.

Another fact that makes complete progressive collapse from gravity nonsense.

edit on 9/17/2010 by ANOK because: bb code

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 12:03 AM
It seems "Waypastvne" hasn't returned to acknowledge the errors in his video. I wonder why?

Anyway, I have been checking out David Chandler's research and his personal channel on YouTube and found
a couple of new videos (for me). Check them out, they are very well done:

posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 04:15 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
It seems "Waypastvne" hasn't returned to acknowledge the errors in his video. I wonder why?

Anyway, I have been checking out David Chandler's research and his personal channel on YouTube and found
a couple of new videos (for me). Check them out, they are very well done:

I'll have to watch the second link later but the first one is another irrefutable proof of the fallacy of the OS. It's such a shame that so many people cannot or won't admit the truth.

Thanks for posting!

posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 06:13 AM

Originally posted by JohnJasper
I'll have to watch the second link later but the first one is another irrefutable proof of the fallacy of the OS. It's such a shame that so many people cannot or won't admit the truth.

Do you think people won't admit what you want them to admit partially because you link to youtube videos and call them 'irrefutable proof' but when an incredibly well respected engineering professor and a group of engineers come up with a much more complex model of the collapse and actually calculate it, you ignore them entirely and perhaps you even think they're part of a cover up.

Chandler's work is average, he makes many mistakes and the claims he's making about detecting demolition due to deceleration have no basis in fact. He's convinced you because you were already convinced, and apparently will believe anything that agrees with you, factual or not.

posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by exponent
Do you think people won't admit what you want them to admit partially because you link to youtube videos and call them 'irrefutable proof' but when an incredibly well respected engineering professor and a group of engineers come up with a much more complex model of the collapse and actually calculate it, you ignore them entirely and perhaps you even think they're part of a cover up.

Chandler's work is average, he makes many mistakes and the claims he's making about detecting demolition due to deceleration have no basis in fact. He's convinced you because you were already convinced, and apparently will believe anything that agrees with you, factual or not.

I think your comments are completely unfair. How can you compare my assessment of Chandler's video with some unspecified group of engineers? If I had any idea which model you were talking about, I might be able to express a view on it for you to judge but you've provided no reference. Nor have you provided anything to support your criticism of Chandler's work.

My respect for the aforementioned video is based on how it adds to the wealth of irrefutable or at least pretty damning evidence that caused me to form the opinion that I now have. I'd have just as much respect for it if it contradicted my current opinion as long as it was factual, rooted in reality and didn't conflict with the laws of physics.

I also watched one of the video's purporting to dispute this specific video of Chandler's and I found the arguments to be peurile at best. No doubt your criticisms will be much more substantial.

Cheers!

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 08:00 PM

The truth doesn't hide, you just have to look harder sometimes to find it.....

Finally some definitive proof.

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 04:13 AM

Originally posted by JohnJasper
I think your comments are completely unfair. How can you compare my assessment of Chandler's video with some unspecified group of engineers? If I had any idea which model you were talking about, I might be able to express a view on it for you to judge but you've provided no reference. Nor have you provided anything to support your criticism of Chandler's work.

You're supposed to educate yourself, how can you have faith in Chandler's work if you haven't even bothered to read alternatives?

My respect for the aforementioned video is based on how it adds to the wealth of irrefutable or at least pretty damning evidence that caused me to form the opinion that I now have. I'd have just as much respect for it if it contradicted my current opinion as long as it was factual, rooted in reality and didn't conflict with the laws of physics.

But your only reference to determine whether it is factual is whether it agrees with you or not. At least, that is how it appears from my perspective, because there's plenty of evidence you could be looking at that's not conspiratorial.

I also watched one of the video's purporting to dispute this specific video of Chandler's and I found the arguments to be peurile at best. No doubt your criticisms will be much more substantial.

Should I really have to? Is it my job to force you to see reason?

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 02:30 PM
post removed because of personal attacks

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 03:26 PM

Originally posted by JohnJasper

Nice try exponent but it's now apparent that you're either mentally-challenged or intentionally obtuse. Neither is worth bothering with so I'll quit wasting time with you.

Don't worry as you'll still have the company of your likeminded and similarly challenged friends.

You can spout ad hominems all you like, it may even help you feel better. The fact of the matter though is that you clearly haven't evaluated the evidence you're looking at without bias. You accept Chandler's claims because he agrees with you, or vice versa, but you have not even done enough research to know what the competing hypothesis is.

You don't find that disturbing? That you don't even know there's an alternate hypothesis? I certainly do.

Incidentally, if you think I am challenged, please feel free to challenge me to a formal debate in ATS' moderated forum, I think you will find it quite embarrassing.

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 03:52 PM
I accept Chandlers views because I have eyes and I can see the explosions clearly.
Somehow we are supposed to believe that this material that has been blown to dust, has enough weight to cause the rest of the tower below to get blown into dust. Did you get that! The building is blown outside of the perimeter of the building, yet it causes the collapse of the healthy remainder.
There is absolutely no explanation other than explosives, period. Any expert stating otherwise is like that company, Exponent, that is PAID to deliver the results expected. Paid to lie.
There are many indications that the federal government has been taken over by an enemy of the U.S. people. Billions going to Israel, latest technology fighter planes paid for by U.S. for Israel, wars fought in the middle east for Israel.
Hmmm, I wonder who has taken over our federal government?
911 is just one example, and of course (Israel) would lie as to how it happened, and so will all of the paid shills that are NOT traitors, they are the enemy within.

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Stewie
I accept Chandlers views because I have eyes and I can see the explosions clearly.
Somehow we are supposed to believe that this material that has been blown to dust, has enough weight to cause the rest of the tower below to get blown into dust. Did you get that! The building is blown outside of the perimeter of the building, yet it causes the collapse of the healthy remainder.

Some of this doesn't make sense, in what way does something lose weight when transformed from a coherent to powdered form?

Regardless, the idea that the towers were literally blown into dust is considered incorrect by the majority of the truth movement, including Steven Jones. Its origin is with Judy Wood and all the bizarro stuff she believes in.

Also, there is no way for the building to be blown out like you are suggesting from explosives, you would easily be able to see the detonation waves of such a large explosive as they moved outward and would be absolutely unmistakeable. Demolition explosives do not do this.

There is absolutely no explanation other than explosives, period. Any expert stating otherwise is like that company, Exponent, that is PAID to deliver the results expected. Paid to lie.

Really? These people you think are all paid off?

There are many indications that the federal government has been taken over by an enemy of the U.S. people. Billions going to Israel, latest technology fighter planes paid for by U.S. for Israel, wars fought in the middle east for Israel.
Hmmm, I wonder who has taken over our federal government?

Rabid Christians? Is that a real shock to you?

911 is just one example, and of course (Israel) would lie as to how it happened, and so will all of the paid shills that are NOT traitors, they are the enemy within.

Has anyone in the truth movement ever actually exposed a paid shill? I mean I hear the accusations all the time, but that's all they seem to be, baseless accusations designed to poison the well.

new topics

top topics

5