4 ms·
yes, the explanation is long overdue. NIST did eventually admitted free fall acceleration: https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration https://
by java-man 7y ago
yes, the explanation is long overdue.
NIST did eventually admitted free fall acceleration:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration
- galaxyLogic 7y agoSo how do they explain the free-fall? Doesn't free-fall mean that all structural support has vanished from below? Freefall means that the thing basically could not fall any faster -- unless something more than gravity was pushing it down from above? It did not fall any faster but it did not fall any slower either. And they admit that.
- java-man 7y agoThey did not explain, they tried hard to conceal this fact.
- galaxyLogic 7y agoI see. I was googling it a bit and found this on wikipedia: "The collapse made the old 7 World Trade Center the first tall building known to have collapsed primarily due to uncontrolled fires,[7] and at the time, the only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed due to fire.[8]" [FROM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center] The phrasing "the first, at the time the only ..." seems to suggest that there have been other steel-skyscrapers which collapsed because of fire AFTER that. But as far as I can tell this wikipedia article does not name them.