Thoughts on the Chandler/ Greening Dialog on WTC1’s Collapse
Regarding the dialog between David Chandler and Frank Greening on applying Newton’s Third Law of Motion to the “pile driver” theory of WTC1’s collapse, kudos to Chandler for his clear analysis. Greening’s arguments, for the most part, miss the point. Chandler’s rebuttal of Greening stands on its own, but the arguments are worth repeating both to affirm Chandler and to help create a scientific consensus on his analysis.
From an old copy of a widely used textbook, the 929 page University Physics by Sears, Zemansky, and Young (sixth edition), on page 4 we read “An equation must always be dimensionally consistent; this means that two terms may be added or equated only if they have the same units.” Greening’s equations that add or subtract M (units = mass) and dM/dt (time rate of change of mass, units = mass/time) are in basic error. Perhaps Greening can restate his equations correctly for all those interested.
UPDATE: Dr. Wyndham has supplied us a final draft in place of the NIST comments posted yesterday. -rep.
(NIST welcomes comments on the draft report and recommendations-available online at http://wtc.nist.gov-received by noon Eastern Daylight Time on Sept.15, 2008. Comments may be submitted via:
. e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org;
. fax to (301) 869-6275; or
. surface mail to WTC Technical Information Repository, Attn: Stephen Cauffman, NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, Md. 20899-8610. - Thanks to Michael Jackman for sending this in. Dr. Wyndham previously publicly responded to Rep. Jane Harman regarding the conflation of 9/11 Truth sites like AE911truth.org with terrorism. -rep.)
WTC Technical Information Repository
Attn: Stephen Cauffman,
NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 8611,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899-8610.
I have examined the documents¹ you provided on your theory of the collapse of WTC 7 due to fires by way of thermal expansion. It is apparent that you have spent a great deal of time, effort, money and thought on this project.