(1) The top part of both Twin towers were actually clocked at 2/3 free fall. (See Davis Chandler)
There is video evidence that explosions were racing down the face of the TTs almost as fast as some of the falling debris.
WTC7 reached free-fall for the first 100 feet. NIST has admitted this.
As I said, one of the buildings fell at close to free-fall for part of its collapse. 2/3 of freefall is not "near"; would you argue against a ticket for doing 100mph in a 70mph limit that you were going at near-speed-limit?
Oh, and your "explosions... racing down the face" are a few broken windows and some puffs of dust. They behave nothing like explosions.
And, of course, all this is irrelevant, because free-fall collapse is not a known feature of controlled demolitions, any more than any particular collapse rate is a known feature of progressive collapses.
(2) No hi-rise has ever collapsed symmetrically due to fire and some have burned much longer. On 911, 3 did.
And, there was melted steel, molten iron in the basements and iron microspheres in the dust.
No high-rise has ever burned for as long, over as large an area, with no firefighting, as any of these without collapsing. And, there are a few unreliable anecdotal accounts of molten metal, a small minority of which mention molten steel but all of which are dishonestly claimed to mention molten steel by truthers, but none of the subsequently solidified steel ever turned up. Truthers like to pretend a known lump of concrete is actually steel, but that's just more lies from the truth movement.
And the microspheres weren't iron. The contained iron, among several other constituents.
(3) No, but the concrete was. All of the floors and the steel decking was pulverized in to dust in mid air.
No, it wasn't. Large amounts of concrete was present as large chunks, as photographs of Ground Zero show. Steven Jones himself has admitted this one.
There was no large pile of floors at the bottom of the collapse.
Strangely enough, the floors didn't survive hitting the ground at 100mph without breaking up into chunks.
(4) 1700 Architects and Engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation.
Many of whome are neither architects nor engineers, and none of whom appear to be competent structural engineers. And their claims are nonsense.
((5) And explosives were found in the dust, even though NIST refused to test for them. "Military grade, state of the art, nano-thermite".
Nope. A group of truthers analysed some paint chips and fooled themselves into believing that the results showed the presence of nanothermite, even though they had to ignore the law of conservation of energy to reach that conclusion. Further studies of similar samples show no free aluminium present, proving that they cannot contain thermite.
A progressive collapse would have slowed, not accelerated.
Incorrect. You know nothing about progressive collapses. A progressive collapse would have either continued to accelerate, or terminated.
Bell,
Remember, what you see above the impact zone is equal or weaker than the structure below. The floor you are showing here is impacted only by the floors above. Those floors are not stronger. If there are 15 floor above, then at best, they would only crush 15 floor below.
And this shows just how profoundly you don't understand progressive collapse. It's laughably idiotic. Each floor, as it's crushed, is added to the falling mass. The ability of the falling mass to destroy the structure below increases, rather than decreases, as the collapse progresses.
And what do you say about the molten Iron and the iron microspheres?
Neither of them ever existed.
But this is all futile. Your mind is made up, and you won't even look at anything that doesn't support your beliefs. The sad thing is that you're convinced that you're the only one who sees the truth, when in fact you've swallowed a pernicious pack of lies peddled to you by a group of dishonest idealogues. The best you can hope for is not to feel too stupid when you realise how badly you've been fooled. And the irony is that you think everyone else has that problem.
There's little more to be gained by rehashing these ancient canards. Go to the sticky threads, read the material linked in the Gravysites thread, and then, if you honestly think you have anything new to say, come back and say it. In the meantime, there's no need to demonstrate to us how well you've memorised your catechism.
Dave
