Support 911Blogger


David Chandler- Visalia Friends Meeting-Dec.17, 2009

David Chandler is the author of numerous online videos that analyze the
collapse of the World Trade Building from the point of view of a
physics instructor. David’s contributions to the NIST final Report on WTC 7
led to their admitting to 2.2 seconds of “free fall” in the buildings collapse.
David is also the author of the popular internet site: http://www.lcurve.org/
about US income distribution.

http://www.911speakout.org/

John Parulis

9/11 Finest

Great 9/11 work, great site.
Thanks.

Great new insights...

It's always refreshing to see new insights into 9/11.

David Chandler's clarity of explanation is just excellent..... he should take his 'presentation' on tour. If anyone can convince the public, it's him

Thumbs up to Chandler for the great work.

A University Tour Would be Ideal

I completely agree David Chandler should take his presentation on tour. I think a focus on the major universities around the country would be an ideal setting. Here in the Boston area, Harvard, MIT and BU would all be perfect locations. I'm sure the Boston 911 Chapter would sponsor David and book him a lecture hall if he has the time.

http://911truthburn.blogspot.

http://911truthburn.blogspot.com

Thanks everybody. David is a pure soul, it shows in his face. As a matter of fact, so are many of my friends in the Truth Movement.
Richard, Steven Jones, Gregg Roberts, Michael Woolsey, Bonnie Faulkner, Yarrow, Chris Sarns, Bill Donneley, Ken Jenkins, Carol Brouillet, Janette MacKinlay, God, there are so many. This is by no means a complete list. We are like a spiritual movement without the heavy investment in doctrine. When you're dedicated to the Truth, it filters through the rest of your life.

David and I are working on a DVD. Stay tuned

Beautifully Said:

"We are like a spiritual movement without the heavy investment in doctrine. When you're dedicated to the Truth, it filters through the rest of your life."

http://911truthburn.blogspot.

http://911truthburn.blogspot.com

521 views as of 6:35 pm pst

question on 2/3 free-fall

Since I have watched several previous videos by David Chandler, this one is interesting to get some of the perspective about the making of those videos.

There are a couple new things as well, and I have a question about the subject of the near free-fall of WTC 1 being discussed starting at 66:30. David shows a red bar that falls at about 2/3 (64%) free-fall and asks what else is falling at that acceleration, pointing out (at around 67:30) that the explosions out the side of the building are proceeding at that same acceleration.

But what I notice also falling at 2/3 free-fall is the debris right below the red bar that is falling through air. There should be some air resistance, but is it enough to account for the difference of 1/3 of free-fall? Is it lighter debris maybe? There is other debris above the bar that is falling even slower. Is there any debris falling with the blue bar at free-fall? I wonder if there might be a miscalculation about the distances or framerate that would account for this difference. What am I missing?

debris air resistance

David answered in email: "It is not unusual for objects, even very heavy ones, to fall substantially slower than freefall due to air resistance. I have checked my calibration and believe the rates for the markers are correct.".

So it is conceivable that the air resistance on the falling debris can reduce its acceleration to about 2/3 free-fall until it reaches its terminal velocity.

In fact, this is a great opportunity to compare falling through air with falling through steel and concrete. The debris falling outside the tower is resisted only by air, but the debris that is supposedly falling inside the tower is resisted by steel and concrete which apparently offers no more resistance than air. This is proof that there must be something else going on.

Also see David Chandler's new view at Acceleration Serendipity

In getting NIST to admit freefall for 2.25 seconds

David has not only PROVEN controlled demolition but made controlled demolition the OFFICIAL position of NIST.
Anyone who does not see this, simply does not understand what "free fall" means. "Free fall" means "NOT DOING ANY WORK AT ALL - OTHER THAN FALLING."
There is NO nuanced "position" with respect to freefall and therefore NO nuanced "position" with respect to controlled demolition.

There are two obstacles to getting the public to understand this:

1: Getting the public to understand that . "Free fall" means: "NOT DOING ANY WORK AT ALL - OTHER THAN FALLING."
2: The psychological block that trumps reason.

Of these - the psychological block is by far the greater.

And so I ask for the umpteenth time: "Where are the psychologists and psychiatrists for 9/11 truth?"

David's work in getting NIST to admit freefall is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACT in the 9/11 truth movement's quiver.

"Free-fall For Dummies"

Now that Free-fall for Building 7 is proven thanks to the efforts of David Chandler, the challenge is to get people to understand what that means. The CONSEQUENCES of this.... Here's a recent youtube video that attempts to break it down. I kinda like it because it forces the viewer, esp. the novice to deal with the proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiAeWHkrPCg

Great video

Simply put for the average non technical person.

http://911truthburn.blogspot.

http://911truthburn.blogspot.com

Agreed, but would Goldilocks agree with us?

Please forgive me - I can't help but post this again because

I think this image is so simple and so irrefutable and so easy for anyone to see and understand - that I feel it is my duty to keep posting it in order to make it available to anyone who can use it. I know many readers of this 911blogger have already seen it - but surely many have not.

Hosted by imgur.com

Thank you David, for your work

as a physicist.

And to this day, not nearly enough actual physics has been applied to the destruction of those buildings, which remain forever conspicuously absent, the New York City skyline, it being simply presumed, that the buildings "collapsed". For example, what about the laws of free falling bodies, and Newton's three laws, as it might apply to a whole series of thought experiments, including one where all the floors are suspended in MID AIR, without ANY core steel structure, and simply allowed to "pancake" one atop the other, whereby each level can only enter an acceleration curve due to gravity, upon impact by the floor and floors above - in spite of the fact that the bulk of building material was explosively ejected, leaving in REALITY, little more than mere atmosphere, above the remaining length of structure, all the way to the ground, as the building continued to EXPLODE, the threshold of destruction amid the explosively ejecting debris, CONTINUING, unabated and without ANY appreciable loss of momentum, of any kind, again, all the way to the ground.

That is the utter absurdity of the official story about a collapse due solely to the plane strikes and fire - it's just not possible, absent the use of explosives, "as seen in the videos"

This proof could then be juxtaposed to the complete lack of any explanation or simulation of the actual occurance of destruction, by NIST and FEMA who offered nothing other than to say that once initiated, what occured thereafter was automatic and inevitable "as seen in the videos", which is an assumption, an apriori assumption that their entire report was based upon, from the outset, never so much as even CONSIDERING any other cause than that a "natural pancake collapse" and "global catastrophic collapse" once the point for "collapse initation was reached".

That kind of thing, that kind of MYTH, cannot stand under the weight of rational scientific analysis, but the final GAP in the official story has not yet been fully addressed, in it's entirety, as it ought to be. I know "portions" of the free fall aspect have been addressed, but not the proximity to complete free fall, for the entire duration of the actual occurance of destruction.

I would like to see you do more work on that - as it has not yet been fully addressed, and is in fact, the entire crux of the matter, summed up in pure reason backed by science. And it cannot be debunked, withotu breaking the laws of physics, and without coming up with FANTASIES which of themselves do not possibly explain the actual phenomenon themselves.

So good work, but surely there's still more work to do, until the myth surrounding the event is utterly obliterated, by the simple, and entirely observable, and therefore PROVABLE, REALITY of the event itself - especially given the historical implications and historical impact of the event, which continues to this very day under the guise of increasing "security" for our protection BY our government, among other very costly endeavours, both in life and treasure.

And in the final analysis, surely all future generations ought to have the opportuntiy to learn something of VALUE from the event, so as to serve the cause of truth and justice in history, in the name of the victims themselves and all the many victims made in their name and in the wake of the event, as the "historical turning point" and New Pearl Harbor cooked up by the likes of Philip Zelikow, and the current Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, in that little think tank study they did in 1999 I think it was if I'm not mistaken.

Zelikow can even be quoted as saying in a Youtube video I've seen that such public myths need not even be provable within the framework of the laws of physics, provided they are the predominantly held view, around which future history is projected.

------

Philip D. Zelikow says: ..An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history.

It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime, and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.

Constitutional liberties would be challenged, as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force.

More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible, like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after," our leaders will be judged negligent for not addressing catastrophic terrorism more urgently.

www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/publication/terrorism.htm

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/visions/publication/terrorism.htm

Watch him in this video, as he talks about how the myth need not even be TRUE within the confines of physical laws..!
Philip Zelikow

The "significance of contingency"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01JUSgCcTqA&feature=related

Conflicts of Interest (from Snowshoe Films) MUST SEE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuoQZkBFj9A

____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...