Cameraman claims he has footage that official 9/11 story is a lie.

The most intriguing thing about the collapse of the towers, is, in my opinion, the fact that they collapsed as if in free-fall. A particle dropped from 415 metres would take about 9.2 seconds to hit the ground $(s=ut+\frac{1}{2}at^2)$, ignoring air resistance. The WTC buildings took about 10 seconds to collapse. I find it curious as one would expect the resistance from the floors to provide considerably more resistance than they did, and for the collapse to take longer than 10 seconds.

Please explain this using the official story.

Your argument has strong parallels with that of the religious. You argue that 9/11 must be an inside job because of inconsistencies in the evidence; when people point out that the conspiracy thesis makes little sense, you reply 'ah, but the government is all-powerful so has fabricated evidence to make you think that way.' This is self-contradictory.

Subsequently, I point out that if they really do have both the means to and interest in completely controlling, not merely influencing, public opinion through the complete control of information, there is no reason for them to have not fabricated a weapons cache in Iraq; because they have not done that, their justifications for the war have been transparently and publicly denounced as both illegal and lying. Your response? 'for whatever reason they chose not to.' Translation: 'God/government works in mysterious ways.'

This is not how argument, evidence or theses work. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability

A fool can ask more questions than anyone would bother to reply.

Are you calling me a fool? As far as I can see, there is nothing foolhardy in what I posted. The towers collapsed at what was effectively the maximum possible rate they could, requiring that there be virtually zero resistance to their collapse.

Which part of the official story accounts for this?

Which part of reply did you not understand? Anyway this is my last reply to you.

I dont know, maybe the senate were smoking some reefer one day and got really paranoid and thought 'sweet jesus, this dude is gonna rat us out, we need to do something about this snitch'. So then they got their suits on and went to play 'golf' on the south coast well away from the murder place and they had some poor dude who was facing a triple homicide conviction kill him to lessen his sentence. So the guy got a 3 year sentence and they got the job done. Could also explain Americas really high reoffending rate.

Maybe thats right, just maybe....

The most intriguing thing about the collapse of the towers, is, in my opinion, the fact that they collapsed as if in free-fall. A particle dropped from 415 metres would take about 9.2 seconds to hit the ground $(s=ut+\frac{1}{2}at^2)$, ignoring air resistance. The WTC buildings took about 10 seconds to collapse. I find it curious as one would expect the resistance from the floors to provide considerably more resistance than they did, and for the collapse to take longer than 10 seconds.

Please explain this using the official story.

The heat from the fires weakened the steel structure to a point where once one part of it went, this meant that load was increased on another part of the structure which caused that to fail and so on. It's a bad comparison but it's a bit like a game of jenga when you take out the one block that makes the whole lot come down. (This has been shown in scientific models).

Air resistance for a whole building falling doesn't work like that of a particle falling out of the sky, when then lower floors fall down they are taking air down with them which then provides less resistance for the above floors. So the effect of air resistance is smaller for a falling building. (This is just what I think, though I've studied aerodynamics and it seems logical that a building doesn't fall in the same way as a particle so it's strange to compare.)

If you think of the first floor failing first which is logical since all the weight is on top of it, then that would encounter hardly any air resistance because there is no air nelow it, just a bit imbetween the floors but this resistance would be minimal to the weight of the whole building which is pushing the floor down. Then once that floor has collapsed the next floor does the same, in this way the building can fall with relatively little air resistance. The small amount of air and structural resistance accounts for the small amount of extra time when compared to free-fall.

The most intriguing thing about the collapse of the towers, is, in my opinion, the fact that they collapsed as if in free-fall. A particle dropped from 415 metres would take about 9.2 seconds to hit the ground $(s=ut+\frac{1}{2}at^2)$, ignoring air resistance. The WTC buildings took about 10 seconds to collapse. I find it curious as one would expect the resistance from the floors to provide considerably more resistance than they did, and for the collapse to take longer than 10 seconds.

Please explain this using the official story.

F. R. Greening calculates that the towers collapsed within about 12 and 13 seconds:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Which matches the observed collapse times, and we find that the official claim of 10 seconds is roughly correct, and if it's a little inaccurate it doesn't change the narrative of story.

Fair enough, that seems like a good analysis. And though I am surprised that the build up of floors seems to have such a small effect, I can't really argue with equations.



+rep for you too

I will grant you that a building does not fall as a hypothetical particle would, and it was provided just as the absolute minimum time anything could fall on earth from the height of the roof of the WTC buildings.

And you are most likely correct in what you said about everything else, too. However, the WTC buildings collapsed in on themselves from top to bottom; the bottom did not give way first. And even so, surely a weakened steel structure provided some resistance when there is 50+ floors of it built up on to each other?

As much as I would love to believe it was a terrorist attack, I definitely think there is something we are not being told. The buildings collapse in an identical manner to a controlled demolition, and I struggle to believe that could result from a mere plane crash hundreds of metres above the base of the building.

+rep for your effort anyway, it's more than anyone else has bothered to do.