Never underestimate the depths of stupidity and pettiness of a prosecutor.

Proclaim all you want, that's idiotic. If you can't actually discuss the physics of your claims at least at the 8th grade level I'm done with you.

Do the bidding of your Iranian puppet masters in spreading propaganda.

There you go with proclamations as THE TRUTH again.

Either show your correctness with math, or you have not shown it. Start with fall times and bounds of uncertainty.


By proclamation? Because you said so, just having made that up?

That's ridiculous enough to not get you a response. You've pretty much proved you don't really have any arguments except one way or another, you believe something.

But I'm not the one to make an argument here, I am only interesting in refuting arguments, and only if it can be done with 8th grade science.

Now that your "free-fall" nonsense is refuted, what are you going to do? Revert to a ridiculous "Well now it has to be falling FASTER THAN GRAVITY" like someone else here, or simply admit you were wrong about that?

Brennan is just a spy director, there's only one thing that would keep him from being arrested.

That's the matter of how many skeletons in the closet he knows about.

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."

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.

Actual written down math equations will always beat your blabber. You don't appear to even understand the matter, though. Here you go.

"Free fall" speed is not 32 ft/s2. That's the acceleration.

The speed may be considered as 32 ft/sec for the first second, 64 ft/sec for the 2nd section, and so forth. We're using 8th grade here, so no calculus. But it still works fine.
v (ft/sec) = 32(ft/sec2) * t(sec)

As the speed doubles, the kinetic energy quadruples.
e = 1/2*m*t^2

That "friction" that you keep harping about does not have to be zero. It could be a small amount, or a moderate amount. It's only in your head that it has to be zero. I repeat your assertion. "It is required, because if there was resistance, some of the energy held in the velocity of the downward acceleration would be lost in the destruction of the internal infrastructure as it fell, resulting in the slowing of its fall. ..."

Obviously, this "slowing of v" is trivial. It might have a significant effect on the 1st second. Say that is 1 second longer. It will then have 1/4 that effect on the 2nd second, 1/9 on the 3rd and so forth.

The series described is 1/2, 1/4, 1/9, 1/16, 1/25. That is the Basel problem, first solved in 1734. I confess to thinking it would be beyond 8th graders capabilities, and started to just suggest something less that 1.7 seconds.

But then I found this dude.

Ikhwan Mirza Hafiz
i'm 13 and i like maths and science.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Ikhwan-Mirza-Hafiz

eight graders are 12-14, I guess I can continue.

He showed the answer is pi squared / 6, or 1.644934066848.

What this means. Even with serious "friction", you will never have more than 1.64 seconds added to the descent time. You actually have at least 1.64 seconds of uncertainty in the descent time. You have two initial presumptions that are incorrect. (1) REQUIRES zero resistance (2) a mislead certainty as to the "descent time". And so what you thought proved one thing, proves the opposite.

Inviting guys like you to prove up your assertions with simple math is the exact opposite of covering anything up. You believe in the Iranian propaganda and promote it.

But you have not proved it. Quite the opposite. You are the guy that thought this link was authoritative.

Oh, that's right. The did it already. One little place is right here - https://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html.

You were wrong. Whoever wrote that page did not even have an understanding of 8th grade physics.

You mean those guys that got it wrong by 8th grade physics? Yea, you do. Like right here in this section?

The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.

Deal with it.

Actually, it should be obvious that a change in plea fro "Guilty to Not Guilty" does not imply perjury.

The real question should be why the judge accepted a plea he knew was fake in the first place.

Iranian propaganda is your thing, apparently.

how exactly do you "watch how long it takes the rooftop @ 1,362 feet to meet the ground"?

Answer: You can't.

Closest you can get is to look at the acoustics tracks

I don't recall "the official story claiming" for WTC7, the floors impacted each other progressively.

That phenomena is an accurate description of what everyone's seen on video regarding the twin towers. For WTC 7, it collapsed inwards.

Please stop sayng nonsensical things such as "Netwon's 3rd law of motion would need to be violated as any resistance would decrease the rate of speed of the fall due to the resistance encountered in the way down."

Without accurate and precise measurements of the "rate of speed of the fall", you cannot make any claim as to the matter.

The way this actually works would be if we say the time of fall is known within certain upper and lower bounds, then the effective gravitational force would be known within certain bounds, and since g is known, then the range of a possible second variable that might decrease the effective g is known. Not that it would be proportional to g at all speeds, but you should get the idea.


You've pulled that quote from a general description of the events, not even related to timing.
How do you figure "requires zero resistance"?

Here is the paragraph in full and in context.

...First responders assisted thousands of civilians in evacuating the towers, even as incident com- manders from responding agencies lacked knowledge of what other agencies and, in some cases, their own responders were doing.

From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals—both first responders and civilians—in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets.The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud.The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower.

Regardless, why would you use the highest elevation to calculate the speed of fall? the collapse started from about the 80th floor. Seems you've improperly described the events in order to make a point.

From page 294.

At 9:03:11, the hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 hit 2 WTC (the South Tower) from the south, crashing through the 77th to 85th floors.

Assuming 12 feet per floor, 12*80 = 960 feet until the section above the crash zone hit the debris pile. And how long is your prized "free fall speed" for 960 feet?

Looks about 7.3 seconds. Looks like your theory is disproved, because initial presumptions were incorrect.

You mean those guys that got it wrong by 8th grade physics? Yea, you do. Like right here in this section?

The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.

Side note. Even though this idiot is wrong, what he's claiming is quite different than either you or Tecshare. So what is it, you guys each have a different theory?

That's why we do best to simply stick with actual 8th grade math, physics and chemistry. If you take the lazy way out, you might believe ridiculous things.

That's all a fantasy of fears inside a shell of hysterical ignorance wrapped in a cocoon of self righteousness inside your head.

A bit of stupidity on their part and slow movement is all I have to complain about.

Or people ignored an assertion that was non sensical.

There's nothing wrong with your "Tell me what is wrong..." except that you can't even prove that the collection of disassembled objects previously know as WTT, then falling from one of the World Trade Towers were or were not falling at "free fall speed."

Given the huge clouds of dust, you'd have to rely on radar or acoustic signatures. Then given the settling of the debris, you'd at best have an envelope of uncertainty around your imaginary concept of "free fall speed."

Next you'd have to conjecture that the resistance of the collapse somehow was outside of the bounds of that envelope of uncertainty. Being Tecshare, you'd like to determine that by PROCLAMATION BY TECSHARE.

It doesn't work that way. Show the math and the numbers if you want to be taken seriously.

Really? Paid actors? That's the best you can do?

That doesn't quite work. In fact it's totally ridiculous.

Among those killed were television producer David Angell, who co-created the sitcom Frasier,[92] and actress Berry Berenson,[93] both passengers on Flight 11. Barbara Olson, television political commentator and the wife of then-U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, was aboard Flight 77.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Aboard_the_four_planes




Guys that want to bend steel just heat it .... it gets really soft pretty fast ...

The families of those who got on four planes on 9/11 would disagree with you.

If it's that easy to poke holes in your favorite conspiracy theory it's probably a pretty worthless theory.

Sounds like a reasonable approach.

I have do doubt that this virus will be studied more than any before in history, more vaccines and more understanding of the entire virus--human interaction will result from current events, than is now imaginable.