He's getting some prominence in the moo-vement right now, with several of his videos highlighted by the Architects and Nutjobs for 9-11 Troof. James posted David's breathtakingly stupid video about how the force of the top part of the North Tower on the bottom part was actually less when the building was collapsing than it was when that part was stationary.
So I thought I'd look into Mr Chandler. He's got a 9-11 Website, called 9-11 Speak Out. He thoughtfully has provided a post about the "evidence" (PDF file) that has convinced him that 9-11 was an inside job.
It's the pretty standard routine. We get the squibs. We get the nonsense claim that "The fires in the buildings, beyond the first few minutes, were essentially office fires and not very large ones at that." Yeah, this was just a teeny, tiny fire:
He mentions the picture of Edna Cintron that we're used to seeing the Troofers claim proves that the fire wasn't that hot; apparently he's unaware of the later photo of poor Mrs Cintron.
He brings up the heat sink argument, and I have to admit, I'm starting very much to doubt that he could possibly be a physics teacher as is supposedly claimed. He brings up "pull it" for chrissakes! He expresses astonishment that the collapse of Building 7 wasn't shown as many times as the towers; apparently he believes that a collapse that killed zero people is as newsworthy as collapses that killed thousands of people.
He brings up the false blips claim. Again, the wargames that were planned for that day never got underway. Indeed, the first question asked by NEADS of the FAA cleared that up:
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.
He brings up put options, and the passport. He notes that some of the hijackers are still alive. He brings up New Pearl Harbor.
In his claims about Silverstein, Chandler makes a new allegation:
WTF? There's so much wrong in that one paragraph that I almost despair of ever tackling the whole thing. Silverstein did not purchase the buildings; he ground-leased them, which is an entirely different thing. He did not have an escape clause whereby he would owe nothing if they were attacked by terrorists; in fact he owed rent regardless of what happened to the buildings and furthermore was required to rebuild the towers under the terms of his lease. But perhaps Mr Chandler has a source for this amazing claim, which I have never heard before.
Silverstein did not insure the buildings for double against terrorism; that's a complete misreading of the situation. The buildings were insured of course, but Silverstein attempted to get less coverage until his lenders insisted that he obtain more. When the buildings were hit, Silverstein attempted to claim that the attacks constituted two separate incidents, and thus he could collect twice on the insurance. Although this strikes many as unfair, in fact, there is a legitimate argument and Silverstein did win double payouts from several of the insurers, although not from them all.
He did not collect the $4.6 billion claimed in 2004; that's the usual trooferism. The deal was struck in 2007, and prior to that only about 2.55 billion had been released. Obviously lots of the money is not going to Silverstein:
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land at ground zero and built the trade center, will get about $870 million from yesterday’s settlement, which is to go toward the cost of erecting the $3 billion Freedom Tower, the tallest and most symbolic skyscraper planned for ground zero, as well as the retail space at the complex.
Mr. Silverstein will get the remaining $1.13 billion for three large office towers to be built along Church Street, between Vesey and Liberty Streets.
As part of the deal, the Port Authority and Mr. Silverstein had to relinquish their claim that the companies owed more than $500 million in interest resulting from delays in making the payments. The insurers, in turn, abandoned their claim that they did not owe the money until the project was completed, in 2012.
Hilariously, after claiming that Silverstein made lots of dough, Chandler goes on to say, "On the surface, it was a terrible investment." I guess he's transitioning to the next part which is the usual nuttery about how poor the occupancy was in the towers (not true, they were about 95% occupied at the time the ground lease was finalized), and how the asbestos cleanup was going to be terribly expensive (not true, as most highrises constructed around the same time as the towers had asbestos-containing materials, and those buildings have not required expensive removal).
True to the "if he believes one nutty thing, he'll believe another" principle, Chandler closes by tying his 9-11 paranoia to his similar acceptance of JFK conspiracy theories. He also notes his skepticism of the Oklahoma City bombing.
Been awhile for the old Nutbar-O-Meter but if David Chandler doesn't deserve it, who does:
Oh, and let me point out that Chandler is heading rapidly towards Judy Wood's territory. Despite his current golden boy status we'll soon hear claims that he's disinformation, that he's some sort of CIA plant, once he displays enough symptoms that the Truth Action-types start to disown his theories.
Labels: David Chandler