Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job
Written by David Chandler
Introduction to David Chandler’s “Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job” by Mike Cook
The search for the truth of what really happened on 9/11 covers a broad spectrum that examines every aspect of the official account. Here at AE911Truth, we focus exclusively on the overwhelming evidence for controlled demolition of all three World Trade Center buildings. This is the area of expertise of the professional architects, engineers, and scientists who have signed our petition.
Many points in the article below, written by physics teacher David Chandler, are relevant to our quest for truth. Because parts of it stray beyond our mission, we will print a portion of the piece, and partway through will link readers to the author’s website, www.911speakout.org, where the entire text is located.
Chandler has done invaluable work making the evidence for controlled demolition accessible to the general public. Here, he relates how he was introduced to the 9/11 Truth Movement and explains why he is convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that “9/11 was an inside job.”
Read article here
Mr. Chandler, who thinks he can divine the causes of building collapses by timing them, should join Richard Gage* and the other ae911″truth” signatories in showing us on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7’s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
*Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM
Unfortunately for the “official Theory’, David Chandler proved FREE FALL of a complex 81 columned 47 storied steel framed high-rise. A detail the BUSH NIST report had obscured in presenting its “’new Phenomena’ theory : ‘fire induced sequential building collapse due to normal office furnishings fires’, or “Thermal Expansion”™ That is: Fire induced symmetrical Free Fall of an 81 columned, 47 storied/steel framed/high-rise, dropping straight down suddenly to the ground in 6.5seconds + –
FAR FROM Mr Smiths claim of David Chandlers ‘divining’; his was Galileon PROOF of free fall.
Height+Mass+TIME = Free Fall Introduced as fact into Government record and auspice of criminal law; important, given that, by precedent, complex steel columned and framed high-rises dropping suddenly as one symmetrical block – at speed of no resistant FREE FALL, into their own plan area all concrete flooring pulverised to ppm mid-air pyrotechnic DUST clouds, has never happened before 911, has never happened after 911 WITHOUT controlled Demolition technologies removing lower structural elements to achieve it.
So that 2.25 second FREE FALL of WTC7 is of itself, indicative of Demolition.
Further. Independent Architectural, Engineering, Demolition, Chemical and Physics experts, after long study of the ‘Official Theory’, maintain outright, the NIST report – or creatioNIST report – is a fraud. The official ‘theory’ itself based on uncontested ‘states secrets protected’ computer algorithms, with no independent corroboration or cross- examination of hypothesis.
Mr SMITH cites the STRENGTH of WTC7 steel structure in his ambition to have us understand the ENORMOUS power it would have taken to explosively demolish it, while at the very same moment arguing one of three or four small ranging office furniture fires already OUT at NIST identified critical initiation point/time – could release the energy inherent in the building structure to its sudden and complete energetic free fall, causing immediate and total disintegration observed in drop phase and resulting damage field.
There are 118 FDNY eyewitness testimonies to explosive events before during and after airstrike that day. Mr SMITH knows this. Many other graphic eyewitness accounts of explosive events occurring throughout the day of 911. Including one outside WTC7 captured on film. Including Barry JENNINGS explicit eyewitness account of explosive events within WTC7 between 9am and 11:45.
Forensic study on metal available beyond the draconian and expeditious removal of all evidence before due diligence; by FEMA and others; established steel melted, evaporated and vaporised. Temperatures creating 5.87% of the voluminous DUST cloud as molten iron spheroids have been established by R.LEE as a significant WTC DUST marker. Gravitational building collapse DUST does not exhibit 6% molten iron spheres. More like 0.1%.
The reduction of all concrete in all structures to 10-60 micron range IN MID-AIR another WTC DUST signature and ALL markers of demolition.
Gage and Chandler are way ahead of you Smith.
@remo:
WTC 7’s total collapse took at least 16 seconds, and the exterior took ~8.5 seconds, including Mr. Chandler’s precious ~2.25 seconds at g. Despite being quote mined by the 9/11 “truth movement” for the word “explosion,” none of the 118 or more FDNY eyewitnesses to the sounds of explosions inside the burning WTC hi-rises ever claimed to have heard DEMOLITION explosIVES and linked the loud bangs to a WTC hi-rise collapse, nor did any of the ~40,000 people who worked on the cleanup at one time or another for nearly 8 months ever report seeing any C/D evidence on the debris steel. Real controlled demolitions of steel-framed hi-rises only cut the steel columns; they do not turn the concrete floor slabs into fine dust, and neither did the imaginary ones on 9/11. Dust is created in all building collapses by the collapses themselves, not explosives in real C/Ds, and when the collapses are of massive buildings and start ~1200′ and ~1000′ in the air, the volume of dust increases accordingly.
If Gage and Chandler are so “way ahead of [me],” then why are they and Gage’s other alleged experts totally ignored by the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, AIA, RIBA, structuremag.org, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ENR, etc.? Your problem’s with science and fact, not with NIST, and I cited the enormous size of some of the W14 X 730 core columns to point out the impossibility of your claims. If you disagree with me, please feel free to prove me wrong by demonstrating your hypothesis on a typical WTC core column. Attacking NIST’s real experts doesn’t support your theory, and your soi disant “experts” aren’t even competent enough to run their own ANSYS & LS-DYNA models to compare with NIST’s results, or isn’t nearly six years long enough?
Six years playing the 911fraud is nothing. Check your History. You are going to be there a long time.
WTC7 demolition in two observable phases. 24 Core column structure begins under penthouse sequenced east to west in 8-9 seconds fluid movement to full building -exterior- pull ‘as one’ – sudden symmetrical drop in 6.5 + seconds. 2.25 seconds’ at free fall . 47 stories in 6.5+seconds. Straight down NO resistance for 100+ft..
‘no resistance’ for an 81 columned steel framed high rise dropping as single unit freely through space for 100ft + means 81 columns over an 8 storied lower subsection removed – instantaneously – of all load bearing.
only known method until 911; controlled demolition.
only known method since 911; controlled demolition.
The ‘enormous’ W14 X 730 core columns needed ‘enormous’ amounts of split-second kick to dissemble from a tight-knit structural load-bearing unit into OBSERVABLE fail.
Remember. NIST report is hypothesis.Theory. Un-tested by the industry. no precedent.
#7 building behaviour is OBSERVABLE; actual building behaviour. Real. By precedent.
CreatioNIST ANSYS/LS-DYNA model ‘new phenomena’ hypothesising a small, ranging, single floor office furnishing fire – already out BTW at NIST appointed Time/location of critical fail – ‘created in the model to split second connection disintegrations of that 8 storied lower structure dropping the entire building at free fall as ONE.
Introduction of such catastrophic but hither-to unknown collapse mechanism in complex steel framed high rises would ordinarily flash red alert data-testing by the industry, allowing cross-examination access to ALL data and algorithm used by NIST in modelling to find it out. Best practice would have NIST model data available for examination by expert peer review. Over 2200 Registered Engineers and Architects from AE911 Truth for starters.
Unfettered Law Enforcement investigation of mass-murder and administration SCAD cover-up shortly thereafter.
Instead, silence. the program is locked behind states secrets privilege citing “public safety”. The cartooNIST final ‘collapse sequence’ animation looked nothing like the actually observed WTC7 destruction anyway, and has never been seen in its entirety. It stops about a third into the ‘fail’, because ‘fire induced sequential building collapse’ initiated by ONE fire around ONE column seat, was leading to asymmetrical collapse in the model. IE: The building in the model fell OVER.
Rather than the observed (real)Symmetrical straight down FREE FALL.
Things have to have a semblance of reality.
Eyewitness reports of explosive events before during and after airstrike are testimony of “explosive events” experienced BY first hand survivors. During which three giant steel framed high rises were destroyed exhibiting ALL known forensics of demolition. ?What part of their eye-witness testimony to explosive events indicated to Mr SMITH the explosions described were “not being related to demolition”? Many clearly discuss floor by floor explosive events as demolition.
But at least Smith acknowledges there WERE over 118 direct testaments to ‘explosions’.
So why were they Not included in official reports.
Regarding pyrotechnic DUST clouds composition and volumes. Studies repudiating gravitational collapse kinetics able to :
-drop the buildings at constant speed including free fall through structure of greatest resistance while
-ejecting muti-tonne steel units 600 hundreds of feet in radial arcs (FI: a good chunk of the #1Antenna onto Liberty st,) while
– pulverising hundreds of acres of concrete flooring in mid-air into expanding pyrotechnic Dust clouds – 5.87% by mass molten Fe spheroids; then
-energetically burn furnace fires running molten steel“like lava from a volcano” in the pile for 13 weeks;
are not hard to find and equal any attempts to debunk them.
As to ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, AIA, RIBA etc.
Failure of intellectual elites to investigate evidence presented by Engineers and Architects derives from many sources. Is now a matter of study in of itself.
An excellent dvd presentation “911 in the Academic Community” very actively engages this universal failure to engage. Ratio of members in these institutions never having heard of WTC7 will account for major part of absence of inquiry. Remember. WTC7 does not appear in Official Commission Report. It is banned from discussion on MSM. The numbers of people that know of it are few, adding argument to anyone proposing conspiracies at this level cannot be contained. GLADIO and NORTHWOODS are in this category.
Absence of WTC7 in open discussion as part of 911 attests to the ability of secrets being kept.
.
@remo:
Gage’s crap is only “hypothesis. Theory. Un-tested by the industry. no precedent” too, and is totally ignored by every established and reputable structural engineering and architectural organization and publication in the world. The causes of building collapses are not divined by timing them, and you can’t even do that honestly and accurately. WTC 7’s EXTERIOR collapse took ~8.5 seconds, including Chandler’s precious ~2.25 seconds at g, and that portion could actually have EXCEEDED g, since the interior was already in motion and had been collapsing for at least 9 seconds. “Six years playing the 911fraud is nothing” for Gage and his cronies, who will be doing it for eternity, but it’s PLENTY of time for “more than 2100 experts” to run NEW and INDEPENDENT ANSYS & LS-DYNA models of WTC 7’s column 79 area to compare with NIST’s results, so why haven’t they? NIST’s complete input and results FILES weren’t PUBLICLY released because of a provision in the NCST Act preventing it, but the input DATA is spoon-fed to them in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, and 1-9A. Your straw man backfired.
The FDNY quote mined by your 9/11 “truth movement” for the word “explosion” did not claim to have heard DEMOLITION explosiVES, didn’t link the loud bangs inside the burning hi-rises to any of their collapses, and are not 9/11 troofers. Here’s Erik Lawyer’s “firefighters” for 9/11 “truth” petition:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110822051243/http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
I ctrl-f searched it for “FDNY” a few weeks ago, and counted one signatory who even CLAIMS to have been among the FDNY at the WTC on 9/11, two others including an “xxxxxxxx” who both claim to have retired from duty prior to 9/11/01, one claiming to be a NYC firefighter’s sister, and two “in memory of [the FDNY or a specific member],” one of whom is the same or a different “xxxxxxxx.” There were hundreds of FDNY at the WTC that day, including the 343 who died there, and the FDNY had roughly 10,000 members in 2001 who apparently don’t care as much as you do about what killed so many of their colleagues, close friends, and relatives.
Instead of mindlessly bashing the most respected (mostly CIVILIAN) forensic structural engineering organization in the world, please focus on demonstrating on video with audio that your theory is even remotely possible in Manhattan. W14 X 730s were used as core columns in all 3 collapsed WTC hi-rises, and are readily available:
http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
Go for it.
The greatest minds in the world will struggle to define the democracy your argument represents.
Where data critical to high rise construction safety is locked behind state secrets privilege.
@remo:
My argument wasn’t intended to represent democracy; it was intended to show the foolishness of Richard Gage’s claims. THIS “data critical to high rise construction safety is [NOT] locked behind state secrets privilege”:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/about.cfm
The input data in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, and 1-9A isn’t either, so when are Gage and his “more than 2100 experts” going to run their own ANSYS & LS-DYNA models of WTC 7’s column 79 area to compare with NIST’s results? Isn’t FIVE AND A HALF YEARS long enough?
Never confuse the “Official Government Conspiracy Theory” with science.
The “Official Government Conspiracy Theory” was composed for the masses ,not for anybody with an understanding of science or engineering.
“The masses” aren’t even concerned with the 28 pages that have been redacted from the 911 Commission Report …28 pages about those behind the financing of “Operation 911”.
Some times gatekeepers don’t even realise that they are gatekeepers ,patriotism and ignorance hides many truths.
@mick:
These live eyewitnesses must not have any “understanding of science and engineering”:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc
http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande
http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/insidethetowers:summaryofwitnessaccounts
The MANY plaintiffs and their legal and claims departments involved in this recent appeal left $314.5 million on the table because they don’t have any “understanding of science and engineering”:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020131204097
Please note the testimony there from 4 or more FDNY personnel. 343 of their own were killed on 9/11, mostly in the WTC tower collapses, so don’t they care as much as you do about what caused their deaths?
In reply to
” @remo: My argument wasn’t intended to represent democracy; it was intended to show the foolishness of Richard Gage’s claims. THIS “data critical to high rise construction safety is [NOT] locked behind state secrets privilege”: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/about.cfm. The input data in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, and 1-9A isn’t either, so when are Gage and his “more than 2100 experts” going to run their own ANSYS & LS-DYNA models of WTC 7′s column 79 area to compare with NIST’s results? Isn’t FIVE AND A HALF YEARS long enough?”-
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..@SMITH(the generic)
Director of NIST: Disclosure of WTC7 data “might jeopardize public safety” http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf
FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION. Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information. 1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities. 2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities. Patrick Gallagher Director National Institute of Standards and Technology. Dated: JUL 09 2009
If you have trouble understanding what that means, speak to your supervisor.
Then:
Part 1: WTC7 and NIST – Shear Ignorance
Part 2: WTC7 and NIST – The Expanding Lie
Part 3: WTC7 and NIST – Tangled Webs. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nU4llhPfHbA
The Government argument you represent: that is represented by the NIST and Commission reports, introduces new to science, the NIST ” new phenomenon” structural failure simulation model for complex steel framed high-rise free-fall disintegration, ‘due to normal office furnishings fires’ , While suppressing all input/results files, Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop it.
So that NO Independent testing, contesting or expert cross examination of its formulation on the open market of ideas, manufacture or delivery can take place to certify its veracity, No peer-review by mathematician or engineer or metallurgist or computer whizz to contest its most fundamental BASE-you could call it the alQaeda of computer algorithms .
AttorneyWilliam F. Pepper has written to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) demanding that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST,” a non-regulatory agency within the Commerce Department), for which OIG has oversight responsibility, “be directed to produce a corrected analysis and report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.”
“The demand was triggered by the discovery that the official steel fabrication drawings of Building 7’s construction, released in response to a FOIA request, reveal critical structural features that were inexplicably missing from consideration in the NIST reporton the collapse of Building 7. Specifically, as explained in the recent article“MaladmiNISTration” by David Cole, upon close examination of the depiction, in Frankel shop drawing #9114, of the connection between Column 79 and the adjacent girder–a connection that NIST claimed had failed–one can see another steel element in the drawing that NIST had never mentioned, i.e. “stiffener plates, were specified at the end of the girder and welded in place to both sides of the web and to the bottom flange.”
Your scientific illiteracy isn’t NIST’s problem. They presented their hypothesis and explained why those “critical structural features” (two little 3/4″ web stiffener plates and 3 ~80# W12 X 19 beams ~50′ to more than 60′ from column 79] weren’t critical at all, so if you and your 9/11 crackpots disagee with them, please feel free to present your hypothesis with the same scientific rigor. There’s nothing stopping you from seeing the NIST files at a NIST facility, and in all the time you’ve had since the NIST WTC 7 reports were released, you could certainly have run NEW AND INDEPENDENT ANSYS & LS-DYNA models of WTC 7’s column 79 area using the input data spoon-fed to you in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, and 1-9A. Do it WITH the “critical structural features” you think the evil NIST engineers withheld from you.
Attacking NIST’s investigation is stupid anyway, even if your libelous nutcases were competent enough to do it properly, so let’s see YOUR results with the W14 X 730 core column demonstration I suggested. 4.91″ flanges and a 3.07″ web should be a snap for ae911″truth,” so let’s see it — on video, with audio:
http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
Go for it.