John Berry writes: >> All other buildings destroyed by this method, on purpose or by >> accident, have fallen at freefall speeds. > > >Show me the report.
See any video or documentary from Controlled Demolition. >> floor down. After ten floors collapse you have 10 floors worth of >> additional mass falling down. > > >But falling from what height? The height is not a factor. If the force is strong enough to break the floor, it happens in fraction of second. It is slowed down only slightly. If the force is not strong enough, the reaction stops instantly. Buildings never collapse in slow motion. > Each new floor falls a total of one floor and >it must break the walls in doing so before it has to help take out the next >floor, overall each floor should slow the descent. Yes, but only a tiny bit. This is clearly visible in the collapse of the Twin Towers, as I said. You can see material falling out the side in 100% freefall that hits the ground first. >Free fall speeds means 0 resistance, and yet no one can deny the work done. I and others here have said repeatedly that it was a little slower than free fall. Anyone can see that at a glance. >You are also ignoring the far better evidence, such as explosions heard and >caught on tape, squibs clearly visible and undeniable, the glass broken on . . >. This is all a bunch of crap, on par with the "evidence" that proves cold fusion does not exist. Facts are facts, physics are physics, and the events surrounding the collapse of the towers are well understood. There is no doubt whatever about what happened, and no possible way it could have happened the way you imagine. - Jed
