>> That's an excellent observation. ... but wrong. I am unconcerned with the >> 9/11 commission report. I am looking at a video in which the tower has >> not >> yet completely collapsed at the 12 second mark. I suggest that one would >> have a very hard time believing that this tower somehow fell in 9.5 >> seconds, >> while seeing a portion of it still standing, and the collapse continuing, >> at >> the 12 seconds.
> You're right, the the north tower did not collapse in the 6 seconds > 'conspiracy theorists' claim WTC 7 collapsed in.. I never thought of it > in that way, thanks for clarifying that up, Goldstein...
Or the 9.5 I listed in the above paragraph. Are you dyslexic or just illiterate?
>> > Freefall includes some wind resistance, which is what is >> > always observed in controlled demolitions. Roughly, >> > the resistance for the towers should've been perhaps a second or two, >> > maybe half a second for WTC 7. On the other hand, in order to save your >> > official theory, the resistance from all that concrete and steal beams >> > had to be the same as air.
>> Did it? I'd appreciate any links or references you could provide that >> would >> help me to understand this. Of the information I have read from engineers >> to >> date, the buildings did not fall at freefall speed and there was nothing >> suspicious about the speed or manner in which they collapse.
> There is virtually no information from NIST/FEMA/government on WTC 7. > You are demonstrably a liar.
Looks like illiterate wins, eh? Can you find "NIST", "FEMA" or "government" in my above comment?
Your inability to respond to any of the facts present, or to provide counterarguments or evidence is noted.