Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
It was the Ivory Tower....
I spent a total of about two months discussing what free fall is and what it is not with Dr. Alan Calverd, a Cambridge University educated forty-five year veteran Ph.D Research Physicist, expert sophist and regular contributor to the Cambridge University sponsored website and podcast TheNakedScientists who, though he ultimately ended up repeatedly soiling himself academically over the course of much of the exchange by continuing to argue against the Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body in open debate with an eighth grade dropout (that would be me), was nevertheless instrumental in helping to guide the proper formatting of the animations.
It's well over a year now (September 12, 2014) since I posted my complete Prima Facie Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method Driven Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion arrived at by Process of Elimination (really just an exhaustively stated eighth grade homework assignment) at the end of the thread "What is Free Fall?".
To date, with over 45,000 views now, not one member new or old, not one moderator, not one podcast or other staff member at the TheNakedScientists or Cambridge University, particularly Dr. Alan Calverd PhD (physics) but also including Dr. Christopher Smith PhD (neuroscience) along with several others there well qualified to judge it (actually anyone who got through the eighth grade with passing marks is fully qualified to evaluate it) has even managed to directly address it (TheNakedSilence?) let alone break it or point out any error in it at all by simply copying and pasting one of the simple easy to understand animations along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text that says anything like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario would not play out as depicted/described in the analysis and here's why...." followed by some cogently stated elucidation of some percieved error or needed correction that would tend to change it or the inescapable conclusion it quite naturally arrives at. This is also true of all the other forums I've posted it in (or some version of it as it took shape)....
....and it's not hard to see why really when one thinks about it. Proponents of the official narrative can't really confirm it or deny it without getting into trouble. In other words.... anyone who confirms the veracity of the analysis instantly falls into the "conspiracy theorist" category.... this they absolutely will not do. And anyone who denies the veracity of the analysis must point out some error.... this they absolutely can not do. They literally can not address it one way or the other.
An empirically forged Excalibur, quenched in an ocean of contemplation, unbreakably tempered by the scientific method and stuck fast in the solid stone of Newtons Law....
The realization of the empirically established fact that WTC7 was brought down by energetic materials having been phyisically transported inside the building immediately shines a bright spotlight (really more like a giant laser beam) on literally the only ones on the planet who could possibly have carried out a covert domestic operation of that magnitude in that building (and by extension all the events of that day).... the only ones who had exclusive carte blanche access to the highly secured building.... the only ones who could possibly have defeated the buildings security system.... the only ones who had ready access to the quantity and quality of energetic materials required.... and the only ones who could possibly have allowed in those with the required expertise to arrange for the buildings destruction using said energetic materials.
The undeniable fact of the matter is that only the Dpartment of Defense/Central Intelligence Agency (headed at the time by Richard Meyers and George Tenet respectively) could' have done it. And just as one needn't be Isaac Newton to see there is no other possible explanation for the behavior of WTC7 other than energetic materials having been physically transported inside the building, one needn't be Sherlock Holmes to see there is no other possible explanation as to who could have done it since the building was in perpetual lock down for many years as a highly secured government facility.... it's elementary.
Hi Emile -
Found this and thought you might want to check it out and give some input..
All these so called "academics" coming out of the woodwork to wave around their "credentials".... all the structural engineers, scientists, physicists, architects, chemists, metalurgists, philosophers etc., etc. all endlessly falling all over each other evaluating, analysing and arguing about a 105 foot 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of a steel frame building as a single unit, a period of time, by the way.... during which there can have been no structure or material of any kind present to evaluate, analyse or argue about under the exceptionless condition required for that rate of descent to be observed.
And now we have this Professor Hulsey fellow from UAF planning to evaluate all the various possible causes of the buildings destruction using finite element modeling to create computer animations simulating the behaviour of all the various structural components of the building that judging by the officialy and independently verified rate of descent of the upper part of the building as a single unit.... couldn't possibly have been present to analyse, animate or model during the 2.25 second period in question.
So, here's a model for Profesor Hulsey and his assistants to ponder as they continue with this fools errand of a "transparent unbiased evaluation"....
Even someone recovering from a botched hemispherectomy would know that any building collapse like that seen playing out above (as seen from the South) resulting from any mode or combination of modes of natural progressive structural failure of a steel frame building including a 105 foot 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of the building as a single unit is an absolute physical impossibility as nowhere during any such "collapse" or "structural failure" is the exceptionless condition required for gravitational acceleration to occur seen to arise at any point beneath the descending upper part of the building as the scenario plays out to completion. As I'm sure he and his assistants already know.... there is no such thing as "Natural Progressive Structural Gravitational Acceleration",
"All these so called "academics" coming out of the woodwork to wave around their "credentials"...."
You are right Emile, they are lost in the forest of academic rolling papers and fail to see the trees!
"analysing and arguing about a 105 foot 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of a steel frame building as a single unit, a period of time, by the way.... during which there can have been no structure or material of any kind present to evaluate, analyse or argue about under the exceptionless condition required for that rate of descent to be observed."
True again. I would have certainly understood this in grade school. F=ma ... There are no forces in play
in those 2.25 seconds besides gravitational acceleration. Simple stuff!
The NIST analysis is an exercise in irrelevant mathematical masturbation, and a complete deception.
"Even someone recovering from a botched hemispherectomy would know that any building collapse like that seen playing out above (as seen from the South) resulting from any mode or combination of modes of natural progressive structural failure of a steel frame building including a 105 foot 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of the building as a single unit is an absolute physical impossibility."
Well said! It seems your hemispheres are not only intact, but harmonized from a life of learning science and the arts without the scalpel that is higher academia!
It is pains me to see what the institutions have done to science, turning it into no more than a Trump Beauty Contest to see who can best fit themselves into the mold of political and cultural bias. Your understanding of science dwarfs that of those who dwell in the Ivory Tower!
For the non-technical reader, that's the most persuasive,
clear and accessible case for the impossible free fall (of WTC7) I've
ever seen online. - Fintan Dunne
Emile: Very nice illustration and explanation. Thanks. I like the way you tie the need for explosives planted beforehand to
achieve free fall. No doubt. Then that logically implicates the CIA and defense department. No doubt. Very Simple. Beautiful. Book 'em Dano.
Thanks Danny, on a lighter note....
I was reviewing my exchange with Dr. Calverd over at TheNakedScientists where we were still hammering out what free fall is and what it isn't and he said "Not sure what program you are using to generate the animations...." to which I responded "Hah! I'm flattered you thought I was using a program but.... I am the program. I produced all the individual images that went into each animation....".
Looking back at the thread and completed analysis makes me feel like that computer WOPR in the movie WarGames with Matthew Broderick (one of my favorites back then). I couldn't resist....
I am the Program.
This is priceless work, Emile. Such a great, easily understandable, self-contained proof of the impossibility of random fires and damage causing free-fall acceleration, and the importance of understanding the undeniable involvement of the US Gooberment alphabet agencies.
Shallel Octavia- "This is priceless work, Emile."
Hah! An analysis by an anonymous eighth grade dropout makes it into the Reddit "9/11 Wiki". For some reason that just cracks me up. There it sits among all sorts of official reports, peer reviewed papers and various so called "expert" opinions....
Emile: Hi Thanks for the link to your reddit listing. Congratulations . Good work. Here is the link to my birdrop website where
I "discovered" you on stumbleupon: http://www.stumbleupon.com/stumbler/birdrop