So-called 911 truth myth #1, Towers fell at free fall speed.

If you watch WTC collapse videos you will see debri hitting the ground from where the collapse started LONG before that area of the building hits the ground.

At least 3 seconds before.

Yet so-called truthers repeat time and time again that the towers fell at free fall speed.

So you see debri blossoming out and falling at free fall speed yet the towers collapse is just a bit slower.

ANYONE with a functioning brain and eyes can see the statement that they fell at free fall speed is wrong.

Yet so-called truthers repeat it over and over and over again.

Kind of muddies the veracity of their other claims.

If you want to reply to this post STAY on TOPIC.

Meaning free fall speed.

Do NOT use the obfuscate gambit or I will just remove your post.

There were no firefighters in the building for quite some time before it collapsed.

What are YOU talking about?

See, here's the thing.

Building 7 was mortally damaged by falling debri.

Firefighters describe that damage. They knew it was going to collapse hours before it did.

Interviews can be seen at firehouse.com.

YOU people always are ignorant of these interviews or ignore them WHY?

If you watch WTC collapse videos you will see debri hitting the ground from where the collapse started LONG before that area of the building hits the ground.

At least 3 seconds before.

Yet so-called truthers repeat time and time again that the towers fell at free fall speed.

So you see debri blossoming out and falling at free fall speed yet the towers collapse is just a bit slower.

ANYONE with a functioning brain and eyes can see the statement that they fell at free fall speed is wrong.

Your initial statement is loaded with unstated assumptions that are unproven and therefore don't provide support for your conclusion.

The fact that debris blossomed out from the building means it was accelerated and thus it has an acceleration component in addition to gravity. This means it could have a speed greater than free fall depending on the direction of the acceleration vector. There is no way that the debris could have been ejected from the building without an acceleration vector in that direction. This means that it had a force applied to it other than gravity. This of course means that a speed greater than free fall could be achieved by a piece of debris so accelerated.

The basic assumption you make in your statement is that I can see debris hitting the ground from where the collapse started long before that area of the building hits the ground. I don't see any video that you have posted which demonstrates the fact you claim. Furthermore there is no way that you can prove that the greatest velocity of anything in those videos is free-fall. So relative speeds are irrelevant and your argument has no support from that basis either.

Thus you have proven nothing other than you can post an usubstantiated strawman argument and tear it down. There is no basis for your claim and thus I consider it to be a false claim on it's face. Prove your claim before asking others to refute it.

So-called truthers are really shallow and small.

Most of you have made this into something personal.

There is no free flow of information at GLP.

Someone post's something you don't like and you make it personal TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

It's a laugh really.

So-called truthers often put themselves up as being enlightened, intelligent, insightful, etc.

What a friggen laugh!

Right.

It might have been accelerated sideways but that would not impart any extra speed in decent.

As for what I said.

Again it is obvious in any of the collapse videos.

And as for your argument.

If true there is no way to substantiate ANY of the debri fell at free fall speeds.

So the so-called truther mantra that the towers fell at free fall speed is incorrect.

Also the other so-called truther mantra that the towers fell a NEAR free fall speed is incorrect.

Thanks for clearing this up.

Please learn the difference between free fall accelerator/rate and free fall speed.

Building 7 for instance fell at free fall speed for 100 feet then continued into what's called 'free fall rate' which means it gains momentum and does not meet resistance.

Educated yourself before you look like an ass, also stay off the fluoridated water.

You, sir, are not worthy of having Hugh Laurie as your avatar.

Idiot.

This is what i hate about dumb liberals like the OP. They're so content on having their big government and huge fucking wars that they turn all dumb and deny physics even exist when it comes to 9/11.

I thought the same thing.

Please learn the difference between free fall accelerator/rate and free fall speed.

Building 7 for instance fell at free fall speed for 100 feet then continued into what's called 'free fall rate' which means it gains momentum and does not meet resistance.

Educated yourself before you look like an ass, also stay off the fluoridated water.

This is what i hate about dumb liberals like the OP. They're so content on having their big government and huge fucking wars that they turn all dumb and deny physics even exist when it comes to 9/11.

Over 120 1 stars OP! if youre a PAID shill dont expect a check this week!

It doesnt go by rating. It would go by views. The fact that so many people chose to rate at all, shows hell be getting that check. lol

Cause lord knows thats not what your doing.........

Right.

It might have been accelerated sideways but that would not impart any extra speed in decent.

As for what I said.

Again it is obvious in any of the collapse videos.

And as for your argument.

If true there is no way to substantiate ANY of the debri fell at free fall speeds.

So the so-called truther mantra that the towers fell at free fall speed is incorrect.

Also the other so-called truther mantra that the towers fell a NEAR free fall speed is incorrect.

Thanks for clearing this up.

If it might have accelerated sideways, it might have accelerated down as well so it had gravity plus an additional downward acceleration component and thus it would be faster than free-fall due to the additional downward acceleration component. Therefore, any debris hitting the ground before something else starting at the same place in the rest of the collapse does not prove the rest of the collapse wasn't at free fall speeds.

My disproof of your original claim doesn't have any bearing on the so-called mantras you posted. Those claims would stand on their own merits based on the arguments made by the claimants which you fail to dispute. You only dispute their conclusion with a claim that is erroneous. This simply shows that you are stupid.

If you watch WTC collapse videos you will see debri hitting the ground from where the collapse started LONG before that area of the building hits the ground.

At least 3 seconds before.

Yet so-called truthers repeat time and time again that the towers fell at free fall speed.

So you see debri blossoming out and falling at free fall speed yet the towers collapse is just a bit slower.

ANYONE with a functioning brain and eyes can see the statement that they fell at free fall speed is wrong.

Yet so-called truthers repeat it over and over and over again.

Kind of muddies the veracity of their other claims.

If you want to reply to this post STAY on TOPIC.

Meaning free fall speed.

Do NOT use the obfuscate gambit or I will just remove your post.

So-called truthers repeat free fall speed as a mantra.

So now that I've called that out you won't repeat it any more?

Excuse me?

Accusing me of having sexual relations with a "handler" or even saying I'm paid to make posts at GLP is not a personal attack?

My persona here is identifiable in relation to my record here.

I actually have a poster who uses multiple accounts to give me Bad Karma (he numbers them and I've gotten 4 or 5 on the same day).

You're making a huge assumption.

I'm actually very far right.

Borderline anarchist.

I hate the friggen government.

But I won't bear false witness.

Let me give you an example of the rampant stupidity of GLPer's at times.

A FEW people here believe in mythical chemtrails.

I'm VERY close to the aviation industry... just isn't true.

Then you have a report in the MSM that the British are planning like 20 HUGE lighter than air craft to spread sulfides in the upper atmosphere to help alleviate global warming.

Not that they MIGHT do it, but that they are GOING TO DO IT.

REAL honest to GOD chemtrails right IN YOUR FACE!

I make a post to point that out.

COMPLETEY ignored by the Chemtrail Hoax community...

Why?

They give the excuse, what difference does it make as they are doing it already.

Complete friggen fools.

No they are NOT DOING IT ALREADY!

But you are going to let them do this other hare brained scheme as you defeated YOURSELVES before the fight even began.

My take on 911?

Aircraft hit the towers and the ensuing damage was a result of that.

Exactly WHO was behind what led up to the aircraft flying there?

I have no idea as the whole thing is quite murky.

YOU people are hung up on the mechanics of the collapse.

And you are making yourselves out to look like idiots.

You should be looking for answers elsewhere.

And THAT'S truth.

Not so-called truth.

And just a bit further.

WHOEVER did run those aircraft into the WTC did not expect the buildings to fall.

My personal opinion?

WTC was not a good design.

Sure it was OK if you didn't run a couple of aircraft grossing 250,000lbs. into them at over 400 knots.