3 votes

Virtual Free Fall Speed and 9/11: Is it Necessary to Support The Controlled Demolition Theory?

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/06/debunking-joseph-no...

A number of debunkers like to try to undercut 9/11 Truth by insisting that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 did not fall at free fall speed. The implication is that controlled demolitions lead to buildings collapsing at free fall speed.

The following link disabuses them of that latter notion, and shows that the main portion of WTC 7 (the entire building minus the penthouse) did fall at virtual free fall speed regardless.

Debunkers try to pretend that the main part of the building is part of the collapse of the penthouse. But the collapse of each are two distinct events. Once the main part of the building starts to collapse, there is free fall. Even NIST admits this now. NIST argues that buckling from fire heat allowed for this free fall. But the author at the above link explains why NIST is wrong.

9/11 Truthers and Debunkers should take at look at this page and then decide where they stand. Even though free fall speed is not necessary for there to have been a controlled demolition, it undercuts the collapse by fire theory of NIST.

And check out the final video link on that page! It shows how part of a tall steel building CAN collapse from fire, but only asymmetrically, and not at free fall speed.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

By the way, one person has

By the way, one person has been responding to others' post on this subject by insisting that WTC 7 was not brought down by fire alone, but he should know that even NIST now admits that there was not enough structural damage from falling debris to explain the total collapse of WTC 7. Nor does NIST believe diesel fuel tanks had any role. http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/07/charlie-veitch-parr... for more on this subject.