Monday, May 04, 2009

David Chandler analysis on WTC1: concrete to dust


The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower of the World Trade Center) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building. [I want to acknowledge the work of Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti who have been engaged in similar measurements by other means and have reached similar conclusions.]

More from David Chandler on

Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti publish "The Missing Jolt"

Article posted from 9-11 Blogger

The 116th peer-reviewed paper was published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
?The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,?
by Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. Take a look!
This fine paper underwent several months of rather arduous peer-review preceding its publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The paper supports work by James Gourley published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and recent analysis by David Chandler. A few quotes from the paper should wet your interest:

?In its Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, the National Institute of Standards and Technology summarizes its three year study and outlines its explanation of the total collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.[1] Readers of the report will find that the roughly $20 million expended on this effort have resulted in an explanation of the total collapse of these buildings that is so vague it barely qualifies as a hypothesis. But it does have one crucial feature of a hypothesis: it is, in principle, falsifiable. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that it is false.


  1. .
    Interesting post. I don't know. I'm not a structural or mechanical engineer, architect, steelworker or demolitions expert. I wasn't there on 9/11, though I was there for the first bombing of the WTC. I used to live two blocks away. They caught those guys. Those guys said their buddies were coming back, to finish the job. It was known that planes could be used as bombs, and that the WTC was a target. So, nu?

    They can do all the engineering studies in the world, but what it comes down to for me is "My Pet Goat."Thanks for the inspiration.

  2. Yep, they stuck Duhhbya there with his little brother Jehhb for safe keeping. Jeb already had laws in place to enable the National Guard in a terrorist attack occurred. Damning to say the least.

    There is so much evidence that shows this was an inside job that they will do anything to keep from having a real investigation.

    Theories and hypothesis are not the important thing here. Preservation and analysis of evidence will be what is most important in an independent and open investigation.