More on World Trade Center 7
EMILE COLE writes:
I think what’s really surprising about the facts about World Trade Center Building 7 is all the continued speculation almost fifteen years later about other possible explanations for the observed period of gravitational acceleration involved in the building’s collapse. When it comes to WTC7 everyone intuitively knows why the official story must be wrong. Let’s not forget that it was David Chandler, a high school science teacher (featured in the video above), who actually forced the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to reverse itself on the issue of free fall. I think that’s why people who see the video experience a persistent, nagging sensation that something’s just not right. They remember…. and they’re correct.
I spent two full months discussing and hammering out what free fall is and what it is not with Dr. Alan Calverd, PhD, a Cambridge University educated, forty-five year veteran research physicist and regular contributor to the Cambridge University sponsored website The Naked Scientists who, though he ultimately ended up repeatedly degrading himself academically over the entire course of the exchange with an eighth-grade dropout by continuing to argue sophistically in open debate against the Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body, was nevertheless instrumental in helping to guide the formatting of the animations. It’s been over ten months now since I posted a complete Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method Driven Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion at the end of the thread “What is Free Fall?” [See the animations on the last page of that thread, in which I write under the name “Aemilius.”] (more…)






