David Chandler: The Simple Physics of the World Trade Center collapses_on RichardGage911:UNLEASHED!
Every Saturday, 10am Pacific * 1pm Eastern * 17:00 GMT
This show will be archived here right after the broadcast.
David Chandler
Just how fast is free-fall acceleration? And what does it mean when a building collapses that fast? My guest on RichardGage911:Unleashed! brings you back to high school and shows how easy it is to talk to your friends about the problem of World Trade Center Building 7:
David became involved with studying the building collapses at the World Trade Center when he realized that he could use the video frame tracking software that he used in his physics teaching, to measure various velocities and accelerations associated with the 9/11 building collapses.
He is best known for his measurements demonstrating the absolute freefall of World Trade Center Building 7, proving that NIST’s claims about that building were false.
His work forced NIST to correct their final report to admit that the building came down in freefall, even though they continue to deny its clear implications.
David has authored and co-authored a number of scientific papers related to 9/11, including “Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower” and “Fundamental Physics”.
He has also created a large number of videos analyzing various moving components in the World Trade Center—including the ones he custom-made for my “9/11:Blueprint for Truth” presentation which I have given now more than 650 times around the world! His videos are free to watch now on YouTube & BitChute.
In the last several years David has delved into the attack on the Pentagon and has opened a can of worms in the 9/11 Truth Movement. We’re bypassing that most controversial subject this time around but we will “circle back” with him in a few months when we dip our toes into that mess at RichardGage911:Unleashed! after we develop enough sturdy ground to stand on ourselves as we continue to fly solo.
He maintains a website hosting his own research in collaboration with several other researchers at 911speakout.org.
Since about 2007 he has been active as a researcher with the “science wing” of the 9/11 Truth Movement. For a number of years he worked directly with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and served with me on its board of directors.
He is currently the Coordinator of Scientists for 9/11 Truth.
Join us weekly for an out-of-the-box unleashed experience in video podcasting by the founder and former CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage, AIA – a 30-year architect. Richard is soaring even higher, now that he is flying solo from AE911Truth. He’ll not only be sharing the 9/11 WTC explosive evidence, as only he can do, but he’ll be looking behind closed doors, under rugs, and around the world, for answers to questions that many in the 9/11 Truth Movement aren’t even ready to ask. Visit his website here.
“The views and opinions expressed on this show are the sole responsibility of the speaker(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of NoLiesRadio.org. NoLiesRadio.org will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements expressed therein.”
Share
Was intrigued by the comments of the previous writer. I poo pooed holograms, figuring it was a far out explanation along with diverted hurricanes and directed energy. But he makes good points. Why didn’t the plane get squashed like a bug when it slammed into the building? How did it sail through all those steel columns? One explanation I heard was the original planes were switched and replaced by ones with explosives in the nose and which were shored up to withstand the pressures of flying at 500 MPH at sea level. According to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, the air pressure at seal level should have torn those planes apart at those speeds. It’s so so sad that so few are skeptical of the official narrative. The next time I hear someone say how Al Qaida hijacked those planes and killed all those people, I’ll scream. All you need is two eyes and some common sense to realize it’s a crock.
I was surprised to hear David Chandler include holograms among the subjects related to 9/11 not worth looking at. I have been following many of the theories for fifteen years and have not heard any other credible explanation for the video of what appears to be an airplane flying through concrete and steel including the tailfins without any deformation whatsoever. In spite of the awesome power of kinetic energy, there are no other examples of plane crashes in which planes punch holes in structurally solid objects without any destruction or deformation in the process. A ping pong ball is structurally suited to withstand repeated collisions with a solid object of many times greater mass at high speed. The World Trade Center towers were structurally designed to withstand multiple collisions with airliners. Newton’s laws say that it is the speeds of two objects relative to each other that determines the outcome, not the speed with respect to another reference point. Which object wins in these two cases? Ping pong ball or plywood? Airliner or skyscraper? The speed of any of these objects with respect to a stationary observer is irrelevant. The collision should have looked like a car smashing into a jersey barrier, considering how flimsy jetliners are compared to skyscrapers. Most of the jetliner would have been smashing against the outside of the building and falling to the ground, not disappearing into the building. There have been numerous other physicists who have stated that we are looking at a physical impossibility in that video. I have no attachment to the explanation citing holograms, but there are a number of other credible arguments for the premise that it was not an airplane that hit that tower, and by extension the other tower. One very insightful critique of the official narrative was made by John Lear, son of the inventor of the Lear Jet. He has experience as a commercial pilot, test pilot, stunt pilot and flight instructor. He is also the only person to get every certification the FAA offers. He became curious about how difficult it would be to pilot a commercial airliner into the Trade Center towers by visual guidance, so he set a flight simulator to replicate the airliners that were supposedly involved, and attempted to fly into the Trade Center. His professional evaluation of that experiment was that an expert pilot would be able to accomplish the feat on the fifth or sixth attempt. If his conclusion is correct, no hijacker would be able to purposely accomplish the feat. Also, we know that the passengers made cell phone calls during the times that the flights were supposedly in the air. The records and recordings of those calls verify that they were made from the cell phones of those passengers, which we know would have been impossible if they were in the air in the airliners. Rebekah Roth has shown convincingly that the airliners were flown to Westover Air Force Base and has a sworn affidavit from a witness near that base who identified one of the airliners flying low over her home, avoiding radar surveillance. Thank you for everything you are doing to find and expose the truth.