I'm Okay, You're a Government Disinfo Plant

Or, the continuing paranoia of the "responsible" Troofers. Fruitcake David Chandler writes about the CIT-heads:

Why, then, the strenuous push to focus the attention of the Truth Movement onto the Pentagon? Does it sound too cynical to suggest that we are being intentionally set up? We must remember that we are in a situation where nearly 3000 people were murdered in a day not counting the thousands who have died since, and millions killed in the resulting wars. If agencies of the US government really are complicit, which the evidence shows to be the case, then the people who really know what happened are playing for keeps. Any movement with real potential for arriving at incriminating truth will certainly be highly infiltrated. This is not paranoia: it is a simple fact. The 9/11 Truth Movement must respond by policing itself and holding itself to the highest standards of intellectual rigor.

A bit late for that, and of course Chandler is hardly an exemplar of the highest standards of intellectual rigor.

Note as well that Chandler goes after the easy target in CIT. There's no mention of the guru of the 9-11 Troof Movement, David Ray Griffin. Grifter routinely gives credence to the "what hit the Pentagon" nutbars. How is that any different from CIT?

Chandler's Smoking Gun Debunked

Great job by JREF forum member Alienentity! I'll put up part II as soon as he finishes it.

Ryan Mackey to Debate Troofers Szamboti, Chandler

On Hardfire, hosted by Ron Wieck. You know that we'll have the video up as soon as it is available. As I mentioned in that thread, I am confident that we are sending the right man into the arena, armed with the facts. Break a leg, Ryan!

When Will David Chandler Fix His Errors?

Our buddy Boloboffin at JREF caught a major error in this video by Chandler:

So in freefall conditions, as specified by Chandler, if the final velocity is 16 m/s, the descending section has only fallen 13.04 m, not 52.78 m.

Chandler pops in and acknowledges the mistake, but fails to admit that once the error is adjusted for the supposedly suspicious behavior of the material being ejected horizontally is explained away:

OK. I dropped a factor of 2 somehow. If that's "SPECTACULAR" you guys are awfully easy to entertain. There's a lot easier way to do the problem than all the work you went through, by the way.

Simply equate potential energy at the start to kinetic energy at the finish.
mgh=0.5mv^2. Solving for v you get v=sqrt(2gh).
For h=52.78 m, v=32.16 m/s.

I probably divided by 2 instead of multiplying by 2 inside the radical. I probably shouldn't do these things in my head. Let's make a deal. I'll concede when I'm wrong and you concede when you're wrong. That could lead to civil discussions.

LOL. Let's remember that this guy's supposed to be a high school physics teacher, putting together a video to prove 9-11 was an inside job, and he does the math in his head?

Chandler made the same mistake in an earlier video:



Bolo explains:

In the first part (second video posted here), Chandler talks a lot of crap about terminal velocity of this same piece of ejected material. In the second, he admits that it was crap -- but there is no correcting information on the first video. And that first video was supposed to be supported by the second. It's the same message given. The collapsing upper section had not reached the speed necessary to fling that piece of material out that fast, claims Chandler. The second video was supposed to prove that.

Instead, his own calculations show that the building could have obtained that rate of speed. Yet both videos remain up without corrections.

Note as well in the second video that Chandler mentions that the movie which turned him into a 9-11 Troofer was Eric Hufschmid's Painful Deceptions. I wonder if all those who've been promoting Chandler's work know that he came to the movement via a holocaust denier?

In summary, Chandler has done an excellent job here of proving that in fact the speed of the descending block is equal to the speed of the ejected material.

The point is not to laugh at Chandler for such basic errors. Actually that's untrue; we do have to chuckle at least a bit. But the real point is that in the interests of 9-11 "Truth", shouldn't Chandler correct his errors with a new video explaining how he was mistaken? At the very least he needs to take down the existing videos.

Update: Better still would be to annotate his video to note the mistake, as Boloboffin notes in the comments section.

David Chandler Takes One Amidships

Kudos to Alienentity for putting this together. Mr Chandler, the ball is in your court.

David Chandler

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:

08:37:52
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.

Free Fallin' Yet Again

Apparently a physics teacher and 9-11 Troofer named David Chandler "discovered" that WTC-7 had been in freefall for part of its collapse. Never mind that the Troofers have always claimed it was in freefall (or, humorously, faster than freefall) for the entirety of its collapse, they greeted this news as evidence that backed up their fruitcake theories of controlled demolition.

I'm not going to take on Mr Chandler; let's allow JREFers like Ryan Mackey and Tfk handle it. Mr Mackey first:

To stimulate further discussion, may I also point out that we have accepted the possibility of very high accelerations, approaching 1 g, all along. See this thread for an example of such a discussion, concluding that the actual descent rate could indeed wind up within the margin of error of "free fall," yet have nothing whatsoever to do with explosives. I remind readers that the thread starter is under no circumstances a "government stooge" or what have you, but instead approached the problem from the opposite initial viewpoint.

Furthermore, supposing there were explosives used, one expects their placement would result in a very similar core damage sequence to the one that NIST found likely as a result of fire. This suggests that NIST and a typical CD hypothesis would be indistinguishable on the basis of a roofline velocity test. Instead we look to other tests, such as the sound and blast effect on windows, and these rule conclusively against explosives.

Tfk points out:

However, the crucial point here is that Chandler's results agree EXACTLY with NIST's. Chandler didn't have to do this work at all. He replicates EXACTLY NIST's graph shown in Fig 12-77 on page 603 of NCSTAR 1-9 (Vol 2). This is page 265 of the downloadable pdf file. The slope of the best fit linear curve is "32.196". (Keeerist, don't they teach kids about "significant digits" any more??!!! It should be 32.2, probably ±0.5 or so.) A glaring omission in both papers is an error analysis - a CRITICAL component of any competent engineering paper.

Conclusion: Freefall doesn't prove anything. Indeed, I have consistently argued that Troofers just assume that controlled demolitions fall at freefall speed when they do not.