Jones Beene wrote: > > ----- 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).
Whoa -- good point! I recall seeing bits of junk arcing away from the towers in the videos and descending faster than the collapse wave, but I never made the connection -- it shows that they were not moving at "full free-fall" speed, no matter what was claimed about them. > > 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
