[alancalverd]

Alan

[Aemilius (OP)]

Right (terribly sorry), "Dr. Alan Calverd Ph.D Physicist".... got it. Was there an actual response to reply 111?

[alancalverd]

#115, IIRC

[Aemilius (OP)]

So all of reply 111....

Apparently you can see and measure things that aren't even there.... Must be some planet!

At almost the exact same time as the West Penthouse begins to break up and descend, there's evidence of venting five or so stories below it and out the top of the building above it as well.... but you see a massive multi-floor piston instantly causing a catastophic aerostatic blowout and powerful shockwave (all created by just the first few feet of the descent of the West Penthouse).
 
There's really nothing but a puff of smoke/dust at the first purported blowout.... but you see evidence of not just one but multiple aerostatic blowouts and shockwaves having occurred.

At almost the exact same time as the West Penthouse begins to descend, windows begin to shatter down and across the facade over multiple floors with no accompanying ejecta whatsoever, no smoke, no papers, no dust, nothing. Only a structural flexure can explain that (there was no pressure behind the windows).... but you see a powerful aerostatic shockwave racing accross the building through both walls and floors (all created by just the first few feet of the descent of the West Penthouse).

Though not one panel of cladding is seen to be dislodged during any of this.... you see evidence of multiple aerostatic blowouts having dislodged enough cladding/windows around the building to seriously affect its rigidity.

Though the entire facade of the building remains largely intact as it descends and there's no visible sign of any buckling or structural failure having been caused by the roof moving.... you actually see a mysterious new failure mode that can cause spontaneous widespread catastrophic progressive disintegration of steel columns.
 
Is there even one recorded incident of anything like this ever actually happenning that would tend to support your assertion about how the building came down?

....is explained by reply 115....

A couple of inches is all it takes.

Oh man.... that's rich!

[Aemilius (OP)]

I think it's been an interesting and informative conversation. I see your theory Dr. Calverd, and even though I believe I've shown it to be completely baseless and thoroughly disagree with it, it's your theory and you're welcome to it. I think I'll leave it at that and just read the opinions/theories of others (if any) and respond to those, as we've reached something of an impasse.

Thanks again sincerely for all your responses Dr. Calverd, looking forward to corresponding with you again.... maybe next time something a little less controversial. Thanks to everyone else that commented too (except you Bored chemist!). 

[Aemilius (OP)]

....I got bored of refuting absurd claims about the tower falling years ago.

If your entrance is any example, you couldn't refute a fairy tale.

[Aemilius (OP)]

This was presented as an anonymous 47 story tall building so there wouldn't be any reason for any theory to fall into the category of "Not Allowed" or "Off Limits". All a theory has to do is be consistent with physical principles and display a solid behavioural correspondence (a predictable outcome similar to confirmed observations) in order not to be "ruled out" as a possible contender that explains the whole thing. It's not a whodunit, it's a howdidit. For the analysis it doesn't matter who the tenants may have been, why anyone might have done it, how they could have done it, whether anyone saw Bin Laden's face in the smoke or a lizard changing into George W. Bush, or even what the name of the building was or where it was located.... and it doesn't matter if "some shits" were flying around in planes full of jet fuel either.

My position hasn't changed....

It's physically impossible for the lower part of the building to have progressively/naturally collapsed (below) in any way that could result in the upper part of the building symmetrically descending straight down through itself, through the path of greatest resistance at anything near gravitational acceleration for any period of time, and there is absolutely no mode or combination of modes of progressive/natural structural failure driven solely by gravity....

....that can ever give rise to the conditions required (below) for free fall to have occurred at any point during its descent....

....and anyone who believes otherwise (below) belongs in a lunatic asylum.....

 
So, Bored chemist, if you want to haul yourself aboard the sinking ship of Dr. Calverds theory and believe all the evidence supports his point of view, at what point during his theoretical post catastrophic aerostatic blowout/speed of sound stress propagation/spontaneous progressive structural disintegration collapse would you say....
 

"Hold it.... Right there! That's the point where all the columns
will undoubtedly be found behaving in a manner very
much like air (left).... it will take very careful calculation
to tell the fall times apart during this period of
the ongoing progressive structural failure (right)."[/b ][/center

Dr. Calverds position is that not only is it possible but probable that the lower part of the building progressively/naturally collapsed in a way that resulted in the upper part of the building actually accelerating as it descended symmetrically straight down through itself, through the path of greatest resistance (below right), and also, incredibly, that driven on solely by gravity it actually continued to accelerate so nearly to gravitational acceleration (below left) as to require very careful calculation for any difference between the two to be detected.

I don't really have a theory per se, but if I had to choose one, it would obviously have to be Dr. Calverds other model, the "explosion" model (below left) that was skipped over in favor of the "aerostatic" model (below right) because the explosion model, unlike the aerostatic model, can actually create the conditions required for free fall to occur (below center). The explosion model clearly shows an immediate and solid one to one behavioural correspondence with the confirmed observation of gravitational acceleration, and it can easily account for that at any point during the descent of the upper part of the building anytime one wishes.... in contrast to the fantastic catastrophic aerostatic blowout/speed of sound stress propagation/catastrophic spontaneous progressive disintegration invention that, oh yeah, leaves all the columns and support structure in place!

So far, the explosion model (below) is the only one....

....that can realistically match and be expected to create the conditions (below) that we know must have existed....

....beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building (below) during its observed largely symmetrical descent at gravitational acceleration for approximately 105 feet in 2.25 seconds.

So the closest thing to a theory I have (and in answer to Dr. Calverds earlier question about what I think happenned), at least at this point, would go something like....

Judging by the confirmed observation of a significant period of gravitational acceleration, a high probabilty exists that an explosion or other type of event must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove the support from beneath the upper part of the building (below right), either all at once or incrementally in advance of its descent, permitting it to descend at gravitational acceleration for the observed period and under the conditions required (below left) for free fall to occur.

[Bored chemist]

....I got bored of refuting absurd claims about the tower falling years ago.

Care to show what's wrong with my assertion about the number of video lines, and the best available precision on the fall rate?

[alancalverd]

OK, back in the swim.

Let's have an explosion. But it clearly (according to the NIST velocity graph) occured about 2 seconds after the west penthouse started moving so it wasn't the primary cause of collapse, nor did it cause much debris to be ejected. A very interesting scenario indeed. How was it orchestrated, and what explosive produces more suck than blow?

[Aemilius (OP)]

OK, back in the swim.

Thank God (figuratively speaking).

[JP]

Calling other people's claims "worthless crap" is pushing the rule to "keep it friendly" on the forum.  Please try to stay civil in here.

Thanks,
The Mods

[Aemilius (OP)]

Hello JP (nice to meet you)....

I understand the "keep it friendly" rule JP, and I think the fact that the ongoing discussion between Dr. Calverd and I has been a perfectly civil and enjoyable exchange (even when mildly contentious) clearly demonstrates that. I'll not repeat what I said earlier, but neither will I take it back. When it comes to the insulting monument to irrelevance that is reply 113 though, let me ask you this....

How does one respond to an immediate and open display of hostility in a "friendly and civil" way? Between just which two blows of his broadsword did you expect me to reach out to this Bored chemist fellow?

[Aemilius (OP)]

Hi Dr.Calverd....
 
Especially interested (actually dying) to read your take on all this.... Can you make sense of anything this Bored chemist fellow has written?
 
By the way, I'm looking forward to exploring the explosion model with you, but since we're sort of in between the "aerostatic" and "explosion" models, I think I'll take a bit of a break for a week or so. Just wanted you to know I haven't lost interest.

Take care.

[Aemilius (OP)]

Hey Bored chemist....

Look man, in spite of the Moderators admonition, I have to stand by my characterization of your reply 113....

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't bother to get involved in this discussion because I got bored of refuting absurd claims about the tower falling years ago.

All the evidence supports Alan's point of view.

It fell down because some shits flew a plane full of jet fuel into it.
That fire heated the steelwork until it failed. The upper floors fell down and, since skyscrapers are not designed to take massive vertical shock loads, the rest collapsed.
It's not possible to analyse the video footage accurately enough to measure the acceleration to a high enough precision to rule out near free fall.
Typical video pictures are about 500 hundred lines high, and the image falls through about half the frame height so, at best you can measure the height of the building in each frame to about 1 part in 250.
That's simply not enough precision to rule out the suggestion that the building fell down.

You have, essentially, no evidence; but you have wasted 5 pages talking about it.

Anyone joining in with the discussion to point this out to you wouldn't have stopped you rambling on about it.

I openly challenged you to back it up (using quotes/links/articles) or take it back and you've done neither. Instead, you now seem more interested in trying to take the helm and steer the focus of the thread to grilling me about why some aspect of your invisible plane full of jet fuel claim/assertion won't work, and now you're even trying to imply an appeal to authority on my part for citing NIST data, ostensibly in support of some imaginary claim you think I've made....  I've advanced no theory, nor have I made any claims or assertions of any kind.
 
Why are you demanding answers to questions from the anonymous eighth grade dropout questioner instead of just asking Dr. Calverd, a recognized bona fide veteran research Physicist eminently qualified to answer them? As anyone can see, you're just not making any sense!

I don't have any academic credibility and I didn't come here to give answers, I came here to get answers from the brighter lights here. I didn't set out to see you in a negative light either, but until you address/account for what you wrote in reply 113, I have no choice....

At this point you've proven nothing, you've backed up nothing, you've taken back nothing, you've refuted nothing, your invisble fuel laden plane theory (if that's what it is) makes no sense and your focus on me instead of the topic is just odd.... I honestly can't see where you've really said anything at all!

In view of all that and pending some sort of coherent explanation, I'm just going to ignore your posts.

[JP]

How does one respond to an immediate and open display of hostility in a "friendly" way? Between just which two blows of his broadsword did you expect me to reach out to this Bored chemist fellow?

You're supposed to keep the tone of the conversation friendly and civil.  If you (or other users) can't do this, the thread will be locked.  Your recent responses are in line with this rule of civility.

[MrVat7]

Falling under action of only one force - gravity

[Bored chemist]

Hey Bored chemist....

Look man, in spite of the Moderators admonition, I have to stand by my characterization of your reply 113....

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't bother to get involved in this discussion because I got bored of refuting absurd claims about the tower falling years ago.

All the evidence supports Alan's point of view.

It fell down because some shits flew a plane full of jet fuel into it.
That fire heated the steelwork until it failed. The upper floors fell down and, since skyscrapers are not designed to take massive vertical shock loads, the rest collapsed.
It's not possible to analyse the video footage accurately enough to measure the acceleration to a high enough precision to rule out near free fall.
Typical video pictures are about 500 hundred lines high, and the image falls through about half the frame height so, at best you can measure the height of the building in each frame to about 1 part in 250.
That's simply not enough precision to rule out the suggestion that the building fell down.

You have, essentially, no evidence; but you have wasted 5 pages talking about it.

Anyone joining in with the discussion to point this out to you wouldn't have stopped you rambling on about it.

I openly challenged you to back it up (using quotes/links/articles) or take it back and you've done neither. Instead, you now seem more interested in trying to take the helm and steer the focus of the thread to grilling me about why some aspect of your invisible plane full of jet fuel claim/assertion won't work, and now you're even trying to imply an appeal to authority on my part for citing NIST data, ostensibly in support of some imaginary claim you think I've made....  I've advanced no theory, nor have I made any claims or assertions of any kind.
 
Why are you demanding answers to questions from the anonymous eighth grade dropout questioner instead of just asking Dr. Calverd, a recognized bona fide veteran research Physicist eminently qualified to answer them? As anyone can see, you're just not making any sense!

I don't have any academic credibility and I didn't come here to give answers, I came here to get answers from the brighter lights here. I didn't set out to see you in a negative light either, but until you address/account for what you wrote in reply 113, I have no choice....

At this point you've proven nothing, you've backed up nothing, you've taken back nothing, you've refuted nothing, your invisble fuel laden plane theory (if that's what it is) makes no sense and your focus on me instead of the topic is just odd.... I honestly can't see where you've really said anything at all!

In view of all that and pending some sort of coherent explanation, I'm just going to ignore your posts.

Care to show what's wrong with my assertion about the number of video lines, and the best available precision on the fall rate?

[Aemilius (OP)]

Well Bored chemist, your last post makes just as much sense as your first.... none. At least you're consistent!

It's been about three weeks now since you crash landed in this thread with the monument to irrelevance that is reply 113. All you've done since then is to repeat the same question like an old broken record player. Do you think it makes you appear intelligent endlessly waving around the same question about the precise measurement of free fall Bored chemist? Do you think that maybe it distracts people from noticing that your posts lack even a nanogram of substance/relevance? How long will you continue with this buffoonery? Everyone can see there's no logical explanation for it.... What's the deal man?

As it turns out, you're the one who's actually doing all the things you've accused me of. It is you who has made an absurd and easily refuted claim. It is you who has no evidence, essential or otherwise, supporting your view. It is you who continues to "waste space". It is you who continues to ramble on, repeating the same question in response to my repeated requests that you back up what you wrote.

Care to show what's wrong with my assertion about the number of video lines, and the best available precision on the fall rate?

I already told you, I'm just an eighth grade dropout, so I can't honestly say I know what's wrong with your so called "assertion" about the number of video lines or what the best available precision is on the fall rate. I tried to ask Dr. Calverd for his opinion of it in reply 135. My guess is the reason he hasn't responded is that he sees your post as radioactive and doesn't want to get anywhere near it. Why don't you try asking him yourself? Why are you avoiding that option here?

You may think you're being clever with all this nonsense, but the only one you're fooling is yourself. Go ahead and keep responding though if you enjoy watching what's left of your now shredded credibility in this thread repeatedly being raked over the coals (in a friendly and civil way of course) by an eighth grade dropout!

[alancalverd]

Care to show what's wrong with my assertion about the number of video lines, and the best available precision on the fall rate?

Behave, children!

If the reference point just crosses 200 lines, and there's no uncertainty in the timebase, you can estimate the fall distance to better than +/- 0.5% and the elapsed time to within a couple of microseconds by simple frame analysis. Modern videocamera timebases are very stable and consistent. The NIST graph seems pretty good to me.

[Aemilius (OP)]

Excellent Dr. Calverd, and just what I intuitively suspected (but might have had a bit of trouble elucidating).

Just to be clear though.... You're saying the assertion being made by Bored chemist that it's not possible to analyse the video accurately enough to prove free fall/near free fall is in error.

Is that correct?