Free Fall - By David Chandler - Discussion

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, May 3, 2018.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,702
    Likes Received:
    1,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My apologies for the violations in the original thread. To sustain the discussion relevant to the original OP, this new thread has been created. The relevant article can be reviewed at the locked thread and by accessing the following links:

    Free Fall - Part 1: https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e
    Free Fall - Part 2: https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-5efaea1ba1bd
    Free Fall - Part 3: https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-part-3-58a87de4ecea
    Free Fall - Part 4: https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-part-4-6986c23835d7
    Free Fall - Part 5: (yet to be published)

    The discussion for Part 1-4 is now re-opened.

    Please remain on topic as closely as possible at all times.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,702
    Likes Received:
    1,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Common sense (proof), from a guy named David Watts:

    The short, simple 9/11 proof goes like this:

    I. Given that a crumpling or naturally collapsing building absorbs energy making free fall impossible (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth);

    II. And Given that NIST agrees: Free fall is impossible in a building crumpling or collapsing naturally due to structural resistance (Shyam Sunder, NIST);

    III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance for a building to free fall.

    IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall;

    V. And Given that the only way free fall can occur is to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;

    VI. Therefore, the free falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

    (The following follows logically from the above):

    Given that it takes at least weeks to plan and prepare a building like WTC7 for a controlled demolition; and given that there is no reason to believe anyone other than "insiders" could have carried out the advanced preparation and actual execution of the controlled demolition of the secure WTC7 ("CIA Building"); therefore the controlled demolition of WTC7 was carried out by "insiders."

    Given that WTC7 was brought down on 9/11; and given that there could be no reason to demolish WTC7 other than to be included with the other events on 9/11; therefore, "insiders" also planned and executed the other events on 9/11, i.e., 9/11 was an inside job/false flag event.

    I have another version of common sense that doesn't require free fall (with all due respect to David Chandler):

    If planes/damage/fire or any combination can't cause an entire steel frame high rise to naturally collapse in a symmetrical fashion at a nearly constant accelerating velocity (because that has never been proven) and if it has been proven multiple times that a fully successful controlled demolition can do that nearly every single time and if no other known event can cause that to happen naturally, not even an experiment or a computer model, then it must be a ???? (you know, if it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a mallard)


     
    Last edited: May 6, 2018
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,702
    Likes Received:
    1,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The following is mostly about the twin towers. Unfortunately I can only post a couple of snippets.

    Free Fall — Part 5

    by David Chandler

    We have been talking exclusively, up until now, about the free fall of WTC 7. But what about the Twin Towers? Of the two, the simpler case is the North Tower (also known as WTC 1).


    Skipping ...

    The official story evolved over time. The public was presented, very early on, with the “pancake collapse” theory in the NOVA program, “Why the Towers Fell” in May 2002, and the notion stuck in the public mind.

    The pancake theory, and the illustrations used in the NOVA program, drastically understated the core structure, which actually consisted of 47 massive interconnected columns gathered together near the center of the building, acting as a very rigid building within a building.

    If the floors pancaked, the core would remain as a free-standing tower, when all was said and done. This clearly did not happen. NIST rejected the pancake theory and instead postulated that the upper section of the building acted as a “pile driver” that crushed the columns of the lower section of the building, causing them to buckle.


    Note that the pancake collapse theory was also propagated by Popular Mechanics and never retracted despite that NIST rejected it.

    Skipping ...

    For completeness I should mention the south tower. The South Tower, WTC 2, was hit at the level of the 81st floor slab, so the top block in this case was 29 floors tall. By the time the building was about to collapse, firemen had reached the level of the fires and reported that they were relatively small and could be put out with minimal effort.

    Skipping ...

    Unlike WTC 1, the tall top block of WTC 2 immediately began to tip, rotating to the east.

    This motion made tracking the downward motion impossible to follow in the same terms as the straight down motion of WTC 1, but the sequence of events that followed defies the pile driver hypothesis. How do you have a pile driver if the driving weight falls off? The motion is a little complicated to describe briefly in detail, but that is essentially what happened. Despite the loss of the driving weight, the lower section of WTC 2 self-destructed all the way to the ground, with explosive ejections ringing the building and running down the building far in advance of the hypothetical collapse front. The explosive demolition process is easy to see. Interpreting this as anything else is very difficult to do.


    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-part-5-a0f77bff4c68

    The discussion for Parts 1-5 is now open. Part 6 to follow.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,702
    Likes Received:
    1,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Free Fall — Part 6
    by David Chandler


    In Part 6, Chandler engages in logic based speculation. For example, the section titles are:

    1. Explosives and/or other demolition techniques had to have been used.

    2. The demolitions had to have been prepared prior to 9/11/2001

    3. The individual demolitions had to have been part of the overall operation of 9/11

    And one paragraph that is not speculative stands out for me:

    One example I have not discussed already is the analysis of the spread of the fire in WTC 7. One very long and detailed section (NIST NCSTAR 1–9 section 5.6.3) tracks the fire as seen through windows in photographs time stamped throughout the day. The fire burned in any one area no more than about 15 to 20 minutes before exhausting the fuel and moving on. By the time the building collapsed the fires were nearly out. This is all documented in the report itself. But then they introduce computer fire modeling software and create a simulation. Somehow they get the simulation to produce intense fires on the 12th floor around column 79 just when and where their theory requires intense heat to make their thermal expansion model trigger the initiation of collapse. NIST’s own observational evidence shows that the fire had burned through that area several hours previously and had already depleted the fuel, but they rejected their own observational data in favor of their computer model which they could control by manipulating the inputs. Even if the fire could get as hot as they claim, where and when they claim, thermal expansion would only work in their collapse model if they ignored the sheer studs that strengthened the steel-to-concrete connections in the floor, ignored the stiffeners at the ends of the girders that gave the flanges an order of magnitude more strength than they assumed, misstated the sizes of the girder seats, and omitted several bracing beams. These elements are all in the blueprints but omitted from NIST’s computer model. There appears to be a clear agenda to force their computer model to produce a natural collapse, without the use of explosives, by any means necessary.

    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-part-6-91bf47ec99f5

    The discussion for Parts 1-6 is now open.
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,702
    Likes Received:
    1,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The science inevitably opens up a world of speculation. So to be fair to the speculative portion of David Chandler's article in Part 6, he rationalizes as follows:

    Do you believe that NIST, or the competent professional scientists and engineers at NIST, concocted this monstrosity of a report and pushed it out the door after the elections, before President Obama took office, during the lame duck period at the end of the Bush presidency, without having been given a political mandate from above to create a report that points away from demolition or even a realistic consideration of demolition? As we continue to the bottom of the rabbit hole, we come to the Bush administration. This is where the means (the political, economic, and military power), the motive (a rationale for war to redraw the map of the Middle East to control its resources), and the opportunity all come together. We have in the NIST report the grossest example of “Bush Science” (the manipulation of scientific results to fit policy objectives — something seen repeatedly during the Bush administration). Only the administration has the reach to manipulate the military, the press, the State Department, the CIA, our allies, and command the resources to bring the materials and expertise together. The only reason the Bush administration would want this covered up is if the blood is on their own hands. 9/11 was the ultimate psy-op: too big to be accused of in polite society. Even the suggestion of insider involvement has been made taboo. I guess that makes me a crazy, lunatic, tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Yet we have no place else to turn. We seem to be at the very bottom of the rabbit hole. Or does it go yet deeper?
     
  6. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So what does Chandler say about all of his fellow physicists after SIXTEEN YEARS?
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,702
    Likes Received:
    1,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This isn't about his fellow physicists but I imagine many agree with him. I haven't read anywhere where any disagree with his article(s). The only ones who claim to find all sorts of errors and other problems are anonymous self professed "debunkers" who are all irrelevant.
     

Share This Page