No it did not descend at free fall speed whatsoever. Yes that claim has been screamed and has been heard by everyone for over a decade but it is an absolute proven lie. It did not fall at free fall speed period. There is not one fact or piece of evience which disputes the offiical story which is why you only obfuscate and and never produce any such evidence.
now you have to show why the NIST is wrong..... what do you have? - - - Updated - - - NIST NCSTAR 1A page 46 fig 3-15 are you saying that the NIST is wrong? and if so, can you document this assertion?
You do not even define free fall speed correctly try googling it. And no the page you cite makes no such claim.
And it's an AVERAGE. Go look at the graphs and explain why there are points below free fall acceleration and points above free fall acceleration. Explain this genericBob. Can you also explain why, as soon as all these explosives SIMULTANEOUSLY went off, the remainder of WTC7 didn't IMMEDIATELY start free fall acceleration?
The best way to address several points is to analyze the steel debris. Unfortunately, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
First of all, you're overestimating WTC security & employees. Why? See: art students. Also: maintenance people were constantly coming in & out of the buildings.
And they wouldn't have been noticed had they been doing something other than cleaning up,buffing the floors or taking out the trash?
No answer genericBob? Can you post the graph that shows a CONSISTENT line of free fall or are there points in the graph with a line drawn between them to show an average? What about the initial segment of NON FREE FALL that happened when all you supposed explosives went off simultaneously? How that that happen?
Getting past security is the easy part. Go back and read my post on what the real problem with that theory is.
your original post makes assumptions about the type of demolition to be carried out. Different strategies would involve different techniques and could be done in a variety of different ways. Take for example, the concept that all the work could have been done above the office ceiling and therefore out-of-sight. &/or explosives hidden in the elevator shafts. There are a multitude of scenarios possible. The bottom line with all this is the fact that in order to produce the result observed in the case of WTC1,2 & 7 there had to be an additional source of energy ( and focused energy ) that was not the potential energy of the mass of the building and not the heat energy of the fire(s) in the building(s).
You can roll your eyes until they fall out of your head, I don't give a singular (*)(*)(*)(*). But yeah, 'art students'. You know, the ones that the NYTIMES reported on: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/18/n...de-trade-center-assumes-mythic-qualities.html
1) Dead men tell no tales. 2) Workers in the floors below would be unaware of maintenance work going on above them unless they were specifically informed. 3) The logistics of the "operation" would have been well-within feasible application. 4) IF 9/11 was more than religiously fanatic Muslims the absence of "smoking gun" evidence at Ground Zero would be par for the course.
