----- Original Message ---- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <
> Whether any of my comments apply to WTC7 is not clear, as its collapse looked rather different on video. That is becasue it was completely different in the details, and your understanding of the first two as being "freefall" is incorrect, but understandable. They were not freefall during any significant portiion of their fall AFAIK. Close but no cigar. Videos of the Two Towers (1 & 2) clearly show large chunks of debris falling separately and unconnected from the main structure. This debris - which includes one 10 ton chunk of the exterior skin, is shown to descend at an acceleration which noticeably faster than that of the main portion of the collapse (perhaps 20% faster). The difference between true "freefall" and the "pancake mode" is not as great as one would normally suspect that it would be - in the range of 20% - and that small percentage *cannot be determined visually* by even trained humans unless there is something to compare it with. Accuracy must be done frame-by-frame from a video - and plugged into a physics software package. When done by software, it can be extrememly accurate, as in the previous posted video. The exact mode of fall is most important, in terms of discovering the underlying cause. This is why we must have careful indpependent studies, such as in the cited video from the previous posting - and why they are so very important to finding the truth (since NIST was negligent in not doing this, for political reasons, and in fact took the next (fraudulent) step - to create an intricate lie to cover up the truth. That shows an intente to deceive. BTW, your are correct that there were many "early" reports of freefall in the Twin Towers, as well, but these were not valid studies -- and were falsified on closer scrutiny - apparently using the same software which does pinpoint freefall in the case with WTC7 (and only WTC 7). This situation (of older but false reports still circulating) - is the big problem which one runs into with a simple googling: i.e. the older, falsified or debunked reports (from both sides of the issue) are still online - and are still being quoted and cited as if valid, when they should have been removed; but they are still there. Maximizing confusion? Methinks the powers-that-be want it that way (divide and conquer?). Jones
