9/11: Hard Evidence DavidChandler911 Published on Mar 13, 2014

9/11: Hard Evidence

Published on Mar 13, 2014

Three lines of evidence (the dynamics of the building destruction, evidence for high temperatures, and discovery of nanothermite in the WTC dust) + strong evidence of a coverup indicate that the official story of 9/11 is false. This is not conspiracy theory. This is hard evidence. Honesty requires that we be willing to follow the evidence.

David Chandler is on the board and on the science committee of Scientists for 9/11 Truth.


Tighter and Tighter

The arguments presented here by David Chandler are getting tighter and tighter. And, much like focusing the nozzle of a Bunsen burner, this video's sharply focused arguments cut to the quick! Thank you, David!

Incisive and damning. There is no doubt.

More excellent work, and damning evidence from David Chandler. We all thank you for your dedication to getting the truth out, and thus helping to clear a path for justice.

In addition, I will add that "if we were lied to", or "the official story is false", then what is the ONLY and INEVITABLE conclusion that this knowledge implies? Also, the 9/11 terrorists - whoever they may be - are clearly still out there, on the lam.


You might be interested to know that the direct motivation for this video was Rachel Maddow's blast at 9/11 conspiracy theories a few months ago. I wanted to have something that presented a concise statement of our best evidence completely devoid of material that could be used to construct straw men.

Video Tightening

Whatever the motivation, it's clear that the arguments presented are extremely tight. One small critique apart from the verbal and logical side of this presentation, I did find the slides presented--often without enough time to read them--a little distracting. A professor 30 years ago gave me the best possible advice regarding making slide presentations. He said, "Never, put anything on the slide that the viewer is not expected to literally read." For what it's worth...

P.S. Glad Rachel's rant resulted in something good.

Mr. Chandler,

It is an honor sir! Thank you for all your efforts in this area.
I argue points a lot on a website called Democratic Underground. In the Creative Speculation forum there. I Know many here are familiar with it. Certain individuals there still deny the existence of molten steel at 911. Where might I find conclusive proof of this steel melting and even evaporating, to present there? Thank you again.

Molten metal

Mr. Bill, the presence of melted metal was reported by first responders, and there are some rare photos and videos of melted metals and glowing metals. You may want to ask you forum opponents why the federal investigators ignored these witnesses and hauled almost all of the evidence away, which is as far as I can tell a criminal offence? They did not manage to make all the evidence disappear:

Les Robertson, one of the architects of the Twin Towers, confirmed he saw melted metal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gr89wDBw20

AE911 has compiled other sources http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Az4kiGzWUg

Follow the links in this article to papers by Steven Jones: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/348-previously-molten-iron-spheres-were-in-wtc-dust-reveal-use-of-thermitic-mat...


The std. debunker response is claiming the molten metals were aluminum but that is incorrect

molten metal does not mean molten steel...

though I believe it was steel or iron even. They claim it to be molten aluminum and point oit that even molten Al will glow red when heated enough.
Thank you.

Debunker claims do not match the reports

Reports such as these:

1. Greg Fuchek, vice president of a company that supplied computer equipment used to identify human remains, reported that “sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.”[39]

2. Tom Arterburn, writing in Waste Age, reported that the New York Department of Sanitation removed “everything from molten steel beams to human remains.”[41]


These people are clearly describing those huge steel beams the WTC buildings were constructed from, not the aluminum cladding panels or aircraft parts. And Steven Jones did experiments long ago that proved aluminum is silvery when poured in daylight, even though it may be heated yellow in the crucible. Some people manage to ignore this but there is nothing you can do for them, they will continue to ignore and move the goalpost. If all else fails they sign up on JREF.

Jones even tested some previously melted metal if memory serves and found iron. Maybe someone here can find a link?

thank you.

I also seem to remember maybe it was a FEMA report citing evaporated steel? Not sure now. May try to check tomorrow. The basic info on the web seems to have become so diluted.

evaporated steel

Steven Jones sums up the reports nicely in the "Extremely high temperatures.." paper.

"Evaporated" might be a reference to the USGS report or RJ Lee reports. I think FEMA talked about sulfidation and melting.

RJ LEE said “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension…” You may also be talking about the RJ Lee reference “metals were vaporized at the WTC during the WTC Event" Vaporized lead alone implies temperatures above 1700C/3000F

Molten Metal

The Meteorite

You put a spark into my imagination.
Remember "The Meteorite."
Here is a good link to get up to speed.
I think we need to have "the meteorite" scientifically investigated and see what molten metals "the meteorite" is made of.

here is an arguement that....

I'm up against and need some help. I hope you or anyone can debunk. Thank you in advance.

I challenged Seger's notion that they were wrong about molten steel. Here's his rebut:

"What I deny is their ability to identify "molten steel" by sight

... especially when much more likely candidates were abundant. When challenged to produce some credible evidence of this "molten steel," the best that "truthers" seem to be able to do is show a photo of some glowing steel or a photo of steel that was eroded by eutectic intergranular melting which happened well below the ordinary melting point of steel. I've asked this before and never got an answer: We know there were thousands of tons of aluminum in the rubble, and we know that aluminum can melt in an office fire like that, so why is it that nobody reported seeing any molten aluminum? Couldn't be because they misidentified it, huh.

> What is your explanation for the iron spheres?

In the first place, you don't know when the iron spheres were produced -- before, after, or during the collapse -- so simply assuming they were produced during the collapse will not lead to any valid logic.

Secondly, since there are lots of sources of iron microspheres before and after the collapse (e.g. from brake pads and clutches, from fly ash in the concrete, or from all the steel that was cut with torches during the cleanup), experts expected to find them in the WTC dust -- no supernanothermite required. In fact, the spectra that Jones has published are not all the same, implying that they come from many different sources. So the question is, if we should expect iron microspheres in the dust from common sources, show me which ones were produced by thermite and how you separated them out from the common ones.

And third, since iron microspheres are abundantly produced in coal-fired boilers and trash incinerators burning paper, cardboard and wood -- i.e. hydrocarbon fires that don't themselves reach the temperature of melting steel -- it's absurd to assert that thermite is required to produce them. One reason that happens is because very small or thin pieces of steel can be ignited by a hydrocarbon fire, and the burning itself produces enough heat to melt the unburned steel. The simple proof of that is to light a piece of steel wool with a Bic lighter and then check for microspheres. So, at least some of the microspheres found in the dust could have been produced in the weeks-long fire -- no thermite required.

In short, the whole microspheres = thermite = controlled demolition argument is just invalid logic slapped on top of false premises. "

Torches Used in Apartments??

Quote: "...since there are lots of sources of iron microspheres before and after the collapse (e.g. from brake pads and clutches, from fly ash in the concrete, or from all the steel that was cut with torches during the cleanup), experts expected to find them in the WTC dust -- no supernanothermite required."

Janette MacKinlay collected dust in her apartment before cleanup began. How many torches were used in her apartment to clean up steel?

How did the nanothermite chips get into the apartment if it didn't come in with the dust cloud?

thank you...

I will raise those points.

various molten metals at the WTC

Molybdenum microspheres were also found in the WTC dust - collected prior to any clean-up. This infers than the heat at some point in the attack-collapse sequence was high enough to melt MO. Molybdenum has a melting point of 4,753ºF - that is 2,000ºF hotter than is required to melt iron/steel. Evidence of volatilized lead - which requires a temperature of 3,164ºF was also found. Thermite reactions can produce temperatures that high - which is far hotter than can ever be attained in hydrocarbon or regular building fires.

thank you and....

can you cite links to this information regarding the Pb and Mo?

Hi Bill, I sent you what I

Hi Bill, I sent you what I would respond with in a private message, as I didn't want to clog up the thread too much.

Thanks..got it...

have a great day

Fly ash spheres are not iron spheres

Mr. Bill, this argument that iron spheres are common in dust has been refuted many times from many different angles. Some salient points:

1. Researchers have found iron spheres in the WTC dust. Note emphasis on iron.

2. Spheres in fly ash that have some form of iron in them are extremely rare, and fly ash "iron" spheres are actually iron-oxide spheres. Note emphasis on oxide. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236106001906

Therefore, fly ash does not explain the iron spheres found in the WTC dust. Carbon-fueled furnaces leave oxides, in this case iron-oxide. Fire is a form of oxidation = There must have been some other source for the iron spheres.

3. The red-gray chips ignite and leave iron spheres. Again, there is elemental iron in those spheres.

Thermite leaves elemental iron. Researchers have found red-gray chips in the dust that ignite and form iron spheres, this is in fact why those people claim the chips are a form of thermite! So-far, this is the only explanation for the observed iron spheres in the dust.

thank you. eom.


Iron Spheres

Another problem with the claim that iron spheres come from fly ash is the fact that there are many recipes for lightweight concrete, and though fly ash is incorporated in some ofd them, no evidence has been presented that the lightweight concrete in the WTC used fly ash as an admixture. Also, unless the ferric spheres serve some function in the concrete, there would be no reason to leave their useless weight in the mix for lightweight concrete, and they could have easily been extracted simply by raking the fly ash over an industrial electromagnet, and then sold as valuable scrap.

this is a lot to rebut!

I just wish Mr Chandler would join and address this. If Mr. C was a member then William Seger couldn't easily call names an insult because it's against DU rules! Thanks in advance.
Here's a cut & paste;

"Yup, hard evidence that Chandler is both incompetent and disingenuous

"I think it's important that we start at a very intuitive level, just looking at the event."

But not looking too closely, apparently. This is going to be a long post because Chandler packs a lot of bullshit into this video, but if you can ask us to watch it, I think it's fair to ask you to read the whole thing.

"What we see when the north tower is coming down is along the edge of the building you can see jets being expelled very violently. These are clearly explosions."

No, they are not explosions; he was right the first time to call them "jets" since they are clearly pneumatic air flows. When you watch a video of an actual explosion, what you see is that the cloud of smoke appears very suddenly and then the expansion of the clould slows down. That's exactly what you'd expected when the force driving the expansion is a shock wave that lasts a small fraction of a second. However, in the WTC videos that Chander claims to see "clearly," we see clouds of smoke and dust exit the building and then speed up. That's because the force driving them is air being forced out of the collapsing building, and that continuing force produces continuing acceleration. A physics teacher ought to understand that, but Chandler apparently doesn't feel compelled to explain things that he can simply ignore.

"... something very energetic is going on here."

Duh, ya think? A physics teacher ought to be able to calculate that the gravitational potential energy stored in the buildings was equivalent to about 200 tons of TNT. I'd call that "very energetic" but Chandler just blithely ignores that energy in his analysis. And once again, Chandler just ignores the issue of what it would sound like if what we're seeing in the videos was caused by tons of TNT.

"It's difficult to take concrete and reduce it to powder."

Chandler gets one right, but then in his blindness, he simply refuses to see why that causes a problem for his controlled demolition theory. Reducing concrete to powder with explosives is indeed very difficult, and cutter charges on the columns would have produced virtually no pulverization of the floors. To pulverize the floors with explosives, you'd need to put huge charges all over the floors of these occupied office buildings, which (besides being an absurd speculation) would be perfectly pointless for a controlled demolition, anyway. Furthermore, it's really hard to believe that a physics teacher doesn't understand that explosives are not silent. Just using enough to cut the columns would have produced a distinctive sound that would easily have been heard for miles, but the idea that huge amounts of silent explosives were planted all over the building to pointlessly pulverize the floors is beyond idiotic. On the other hand, in a Verinage demolition, which doesn't use any explosives at all, we see that concrete is pulverized by nothing but gravitational energy as the debris is ground up in the collapse. Furthermore, Chandler seems to be oblivious to the fact that in an actual controlled demolition, it's only necessary to blow out columns on one or two levels and let gravity do the rest, including pulverizing concrete. It's certainly not the cutter charges that do it.

"It takes a lot of energy to reduce the concrete to micron-sized powder."

Yes, but it also takes an efficient way to get the energy into the concrete, which is exactly why an explosives expert could have informed Chandler, had he bothered to ask, it is difficult to do that with explosives (or any other means of creating a single impulse force, such as a single blow with a hammer). On the other hand, chunks of concrete colliding and grinding together and being battered with heavy steel members in a chaotic collapse would absorb energy and fracture with every blow, all the way down. Bazant demonstrated there was much more than enough gravitational energy to cause the structure to fail and Frank Greening demonstrated that there was much more than enough left over to explain the concrete pulverization, but Chandler prefers delusional fantasies about silent explosives planted all over the building for no logical reason whatsoever.

"This was dust before it ever hit the ground... There's very little concrete in the actual rubble pile. What we see in the rubble pile is steel, and the concrete has been spread all over Manhattan."

That is a lie. A thick layer of dust (which contained more fiberglass, drywall, ceiling tile and other dust than it did concrete) which had been suspended in the air fell on top of the debris pile and "all over Manhattan." If Chandler is baffled by why so much dust was produced before the rubble hit the ground, then he is too easily baffled to be investigating a building collapse. But under the dust, the upper layers of the debris pile contained considerable amounts of small chunks of concrete from the upper floors (which had fallen farther and so had been ground up more than lower floors), and underneath that there were fairly large chunks of concrete. Instead of any actual evidence for his claims, Chandler presents imaginary evidence which is contrary to the actual evidence.

"At the very onset of collapse, the very first motion you can see is this {the antenna} descending."

In videos shot looking up at the north wall, it appears that way, but in videos taken from the side, the first motion you can see is the antenna tilting south, away from those cameras looking from the north. For some reason, Chandler doesn't like that evidence.

"It wasn't down here where the break occurred."

Not "down here" in that video, perhaps, because the collapse began on the other side of the building, and then the top tilted away from that camera. Surely, Chandler knows this by now but chooses to ignore the perspective illusion the tilting top would produce from that viewpoint. After ignoring the evidence of the tilt and its effect on his 2D image, he informs us that the only conceivable explanation he can come up with is that all the core columns were "removed suddenly and completely." (Actually, to get the antenna to fall through the roof first, you'd also need to blow up the "hat trusses" at the top, but "truthers" apparently don't have trouble imagining that the "perps" concocted pointlessly complicated, risky and bizarre schemes, for some unexplained reason.)

"It turns out that the descent of the tower was not at a constant speed. It was picking up speed as it went, and that's called acceleration. If you graph the descent of the north tower, you can see that it actually accelerated all the way, the entire time that the roofline is visible. Now that's very significant. For something to be accelerating downward, it means that the net force acting on it is downward, okay? Now, there's two forces at work here. There's gravity and there's resistance, and if the net force is downward it means that the resistance is less than gravity, because the net force has to dominate downward. Therefore, it tells us that the resistive force was less than the weight of the block."

At this point, Chandler shows a diagram claiming that the measured acceleration of the collapse was 0.64g, so the resistive force must have only been 0.36 times the weight of the building. In the other video you posted of him giving a live lecture, he was more specific that he had calculated a "uniform" acceleration of 0.64g, and that the problem he couldn't explain without a controlled demolition was why a structure that had been designed to withstand 300% of the weight of the building was only providing 0.36% or that weight as resistance. Obviously, says Chandler, about 90% of the strength of the structure "must have been removed."

Surely, Chandler has heard the explanation many times by now, but he keeps making the same ridiculous claim. The problem is that he has plotted some points on a graph, drawn a straight line through them, and then claims that his own straight line is proof that the acceleration was "uniform!" But just think about what that would really mean if it were true: Imagine there was a camera on one of the WTC floors when the collapsing tower debris hit the floor above: Would you expect to see the ceiling instantly take on the velocity of the falling mass and then accelerate "uniformly" at 0.64%g down to the floor?

The "uniform acceleration" claim is nonsense. Chandler seems to be unaware that a steel column can only offer its maximum resistance to a load for a few inches of compression. When it becomes plastic and begins to buckle, it doesn't just ease its load down to the floor at a "uniform" acceleration like a rock falling through water. The resistance rapidly drops toward zero and the failure is sudden, much like compressing the ends of a straw until it crimps. If the resistance becomes actually zero because the column breaks, the load it was carrying can fall at nearly 1g, slowed only by air resistance. That's how columns would behave if they were stressed into buckling, but we know that in most cases, the floor trusses were ripped away from beams and beams were ripped away from columns. Those failures would have happened over a much shorter distance and absorbed less energy than column buckling, leaving the floor debris to freefall to the next floor, slowed only by the air.

The fatal flaw in Chandler's argument is that there is simply no rational reason to claim or to expect that the 0.64g acceleration was "uniform," regardless of what caused the collapse. The 0.64g is just an average over time, which includes periods of actual freefall. Likewise, the 0.36mg resistance is just an average over time, which includes brief times in some cases when the resistance was perhaps as much as 3 times the weight a column was designed to carry (but was overcome by the momentum that Chandler completely ignores), plus some periods and many failure modes where the resistance was much less than that, and quite a bit of time when the structural resistance was exactly zero. Even with much better resolution and precision than he had, there is no way that Chandler could hope to measure the deceleration caused by thousands of individual collisions and the subsequent freefall acceleration of thousands of pieces of debris after elements failed by simply plotting the position of the roof from a video. Mystery solved, because there's nothing mysterious about the 0.36mg average resistance over time. Furthermore, the proof is the Verinage type of demolitions, which would be impossible if Chandler were correct. Instead of being impossible, they show the same kind of average acceleration (and thus average resistance) as the towers, despite not having the lower part of the structure weakened as Chandler asserts would be required. Chandler's quasi-static analysis isn't just inadequate; it's absurd for the dynamic conditions in a collapsing building.

And his demolition conclusion is absurd for another reason: Removing 90% of the columns (or somehow weakening each by 90%) would CERTAINLY NOT produce the "uniform 0.64g acceleration" that Chandler imagines. The exact same failures described above would still have happened, only sooner, and we would have even longer periods of zero structural resistance and actual freefall. There simply isn't any plausible failure mode that would produce "uniform" acceleration. Does Chandler claim that supernanothermite fairy dust has magical powers beyond its ability to explode silently and then also burn for weeks?

But Chandler isn't nearly finished with being wrong; he next turns his attention to WTC 7:

"It fell at absolute freefall for the first hundred feet or so."

That's another baldface lie, since he knows his own data doesn't show freefall "for the first hundred feet." But Chandler chooses to simply ignore facts that don't fit his theory. His own plot shows the building came down at much less than freefall for the first 1.5 seconds (or 1.75 seconds according to NIST), falling seven feet or so, which simply does not fit the premise that the columns had been blown away. If the collapse started because columns had been blown away, the building should have started falling at freefall right from the start, so Chandler just lies and says it did. But that seven feet of less-than-freefall does fit the premise that the collapse started with column buckling, and then the freefall began only when about 8 floors had buckled and broken to the point that they offered no resistance. And in fact, that does fit NIST's collapse simulation, which showed the shell start to fall after columns progressively buckling across floors 7 to 15.

Chandler says that NIST just "waved their hands" and asserted that the data is consistent with their analysis, but NIST is in fact correct that it does, notwithstanding Chandler's willful ignorance of why they said that. On the other hand, I haven't yet heard a demolition theory that's consistent with the data which doesn't require some bizarre special pleading for that first 7 feet of slow fall and why the "perps" decided to blow out columns on eight floors after the building was already falling. And yet, Chandler uses his own ignorance as a basis for accusing NIST of trying to "cover up" the significance of his own misconceptions, and then uses that "cover up" as additional "evidence" that there was a conspiracy! Such is the delusional spiral that conspiracism leads to.

After promising us some evidence, Chandler disappoints by leaving his failed collapse arguments there and moving on to "reason" "II: High Temperatures." Chandler claims that there were times when the temperature was much hotter than can be explained by an office fire.

"in other words, if you take office furnishings, just a regular fire, and you throw in kerosene, and you say, 'How hot can this burn? Could that weaken the steel; could that allow this building to collapse?'

In character, Chandler again decides to ignore the experts who say the answer is "Yes!" and instead prefers to use his own misconceptions and imagination to come up with an answer that fits into his preconceived belief system. He begins with a deception:

"At first, the story line -- the 'official story' was that because the jet fuel was so hot that it melted the steel and so forth. Well, that didn't stand up very long; it was very quickly shown that kerosene, that -- kerosene is essentially jet fuel -- that this kerosene couldn't possibly get to a temperature that would melt steel."

There was never any "official story" that steel had "melted" into the liquid state. The term was used mainly by reporters and even they used it in the most casual sense, like you might say a stick of butter "melted" because it had lost is rectangular block shape, not because it had actually become a liquid.

But more importantly, structural engineers know exactly why steel structures can fail at temperatures well below the melting point of steel: it's called "viscoplastic creep," which is the slow, permanent deformation that happens to hot metal under constant stress. That was the "expert story" right from Bazant's first paper on 9/13, yet Chandler seems to have never heard of it:

So why did a total collapse occur? The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating lowered the yield strength and caused viscoplastic (creep) buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the tower and of the columns in the building core.

There was no "government story" until NIST published its report, but nonetheless Chandler claims:

"So the government story changed at this point. Rather than asserting that the steel melted, they simply asserted that it was weakened."

After using his imaginary history to bolster his imaginary "government cover-up" speculation, Chandler admits that steel is indeed "weakened" by temperatures much less than the melting point. But not enough, claims Chandler, because:

"Experiments with actual steel structures show that if you take a steel-framed structure, it doesn't collapse {in a fire}!"

That's a lie, and a very stupid one. The favorite "truther proof" of this lie is the Windsor Tower, but that "proof" requires ignoring the fact that the steel-framed part of the building DID collapse. The part that didn't collapse was made of reinforced concrete. Many other steel structures have collapsed, so Chandler was supposed to say that steel-framed highrise office buildings must be exempt from total collapse for some unexplained reason, because it never happened before, never mind the science. And yet steel structures are fireproofed because sane people know that Chander's claim that steel-framed structures don't collapse is bullshit.

"There's another side of the story as well. It's very clear that the temperatures needed to melt steel were actually achieved, okay. One of the main pieces of evidence for this is that there's iron found in the dust == there are droplets of iron in the dust."

We were discussing the iron microspheres elsewhere, so I won't go into again except to say that Chandler has no evidence whatsoever that the microspheres were created during the collapse, and he wants to ignore that the first dust analysis by RJ Lee reported that the microspheres were of the same type as those found in a trash incinerator or coal-fired generator boiler, which also burn hydrocarbons at less than the melting point of steel. They simply are not any sort of "signature" of thermite burning.

"So, the fact that these iron spheres exist is very solid scientific proof that high temperatures were achieved."

Yeah, well, now how about some solid scientific proof that they were produced during the collapse, and then some solid scientific proof that only thermite could have made them? Not a shred? Why does Chandler want us to just assume those implausible things without proof while just ignoring all the more plausible explanations? What kind of "science" is that?

"It goes beyond that. There's observations that there was iron -- uh, molten iron, molten steel, whichever -- in the rubble pile; there's actual photographs of either molten iron or molten steel pouring out of the south tower just before it collapsed; so there's all of these converging lines of evidence that these high temperatures were in fact achieved."

On the one hand, Chandler wants to convince us that he is being scientific. On the other hand, he wants us to believe that molten iron or steel can be identified by "observations" and photographs. Calling those "observations" "evidence" does not make that claim any less laughable. There is no "solid scientific" evidence of any "molten iron or steel" pouring out of the building or in the rubble pile. (And for the "observations" in the rubble pile, I'm still waiting for an explanation for how thermite kept the "steel" molten for weeks.)

On to "reason" "III: Nanothermite," but I decided not to even waste the time it would take to watch this nonsense rehashed yet again. Harrit and Jones utterly failed to prove that chips which look exactly like the paint used to fireproof the floor joists underwent any thermitic reaction, or that they contained the elemental aluminum necessary for any such reaction. Independent analysis by an actual expert showed that they did not, but even without that analysis, Harrit and Jones' conclusions do not follow from their own data. The paper will never be taken seriously by materials scientists because the evidence just isn't there, Chandler's credulous yammerings notwithstanding, because Harrit and Jones didn't do the necessary experiments.

In short, Chandler promised evidence and then delivered another metric ton of bullshit, even though he ought to know better by now. And the really pathetic thing is that this bullshit is pretty much "truther science" at its best."

I just don't have time nor know enough to rebut it.


I up-voted you for sharing this though it is "William Seger" who is disingenuous, rude and just plain wrong.

It will not surprise me that David does not waste time with this bozo. Early on I would engage people such as William only to realize it's like a boxing match with the Pillsbury Doughboy. He draws down your energy and will never admit that you have a point.

If you feel you must engage, post something like this and leave it (for the lurker's benefit, not his)...

Mind experiment: Build an exact replica of WTC 7. I will bring in demolition experts and will replicate the motion and acceleration profile of the collapse nearly to a tee, and nearly every time. Next, let him have the provable building and column damage prior to collapse and then hand him some matches and let him go start fires on the floors where fires were present. If he even gets any collapse at all he will NEVER match the total collapse and acceleration profile in a thousand nor a million tries. Simply by probabilities, he will lose badly.

And when the criticism comes "well, sure, it fell as you predicted, after all you're using explosives" you say "good, then you do understand".

Thanks for your reply.

I know he will never admit. He's not being paid to. He's been monitoring the DU dungeon for near on a decade now. Always coming up with some bullshit sophistry to show why someone is mistaken. Always failing but it erks me to see him disparage people who are truly trying to inform people. It would be great to see a knowledgeable scholar like Mr. Chandler confront and expose the bullshit firsthand.

A whole lot of nothing

Hello Mr. Bill. Before you even consider arguing about physics with this person, make sure the basics are covered first, such as correct citations and basic coherence. For example, this person first accuses Chandler of lying about molten steel/iron being present, and then goes on to talk about the iron spheres and RJ Lee, saying that:

"We were discussing the iron microspheres elsewhere, so I won't go into again except to say that Chandler has no evidence whatsoever that the microspheres were created during the collapse, and he wants to ignore that the first dust analysis by RJ Lee reported that the microspheres were of the same type as those found in a trash incinerator or coal-fired generator boiler, which also burn hydrocarbons at less than the melting point of steel."

But somehow he does not understand that it was RJ Lee´s reports that confirmed the molten metal, and in fact RJ Lee confirmed the molten iron spheres were created during the event. Lee very honestly admitted the "extremely high temperatures" present, that is temps capable of melting iron.

Eyewitness accounts backed-up with forensic reports are very good evidence for melted metal. It is not Chandler that wants to ignore RJ Lee.

It is true that Lee did assume these iron spheres are the same as fly ash spheres from coal furnaces, but published studies on fly ash confirm they are not iron spheres but iron oxide spheres. Furnaces leave oxides, not pure metals.

Some specialized furnaces can create iron oxide spheres because they: 1) operate at temps beyond the melting point, or they 2) operate under extreme pressures which lower the effective melting point, or they 3) include a flux in the mixture which is a chemical that lowers the melting point, or 4) some combination of the above.

- A fire in open air, however, cannot melt iron. Furnaces that can melt, leave oxides not pure iron.

It is quite obvious why Chandler is not likely to waste time on someone so confused, dishonest and oblivious to his incompetence.

thank you Simon001

He is definitely dishonest. Thank you for your feedback. I am not versed in chemistry & physics enough to point out the points you raised on my own. Doesn't mean thought that I didn't know something was obviously wrong with the collapses and especially #7. it was definitely a demolition caused by explosives.