Re: University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11
....
In order to get to near free-fall speeds in a building collapse, you have to remove the resistance. In the case of the towers, parts of them were actually falling way faster than free-fall. ...
In order to get to near free-fall speeds in a building collapse, you have to remove the resistance. In the case of the towers, parts of them were actually falling way faster than free-fall. ...
The junk you linked to was meaningless word salad. It means nothing and thus can't support any arguments.
As for junk falling "faster than free-fall", prove it.
The only junk I linked to was your post, which is also proof for stuff falling faster than free-fall...
Nasty little habit you of going into adhominem mode and lying when you are prove wrong.
First it's free fall, then when you get shown that's not true, it becomes "faster than free-fall."
Well, the overall effect was near free-fall. But to get the overall effect, some of it was accelerating faster than gravity acceleration at times, and traveling much faster than free-fall velocity at other times.
Poor little baby. It must be so emotionally painful to find out that people are realizing you are mixed up. Adhominem can be quite fun when you use it, but oh, so painful, if it is used on you. Of course it wasn't used on you. You simply cried adhominem wolf.
Actually, you are getting boring. Just like an 8th grader who can't understand when he is wrong.
