rtcvb32: instant freefall
Vainamoinen: Careful, careful, the "freefall" stuff is 2006 truther nonsense. You're quite behind the times. Even in your endlessly repeated low-res and sped up videos, debris is falling significantly faster than the rest of the building. You keep on spinning
that yarn, they will brand you as a secret agent hired to spread misinformation! :( :(
richlind33: I wouldn't hesitate to beat myself over the head with the truth, regardless of where the burden of proof lay. ;p
Vainamoinen: You're in quite the fortunate argumentative position here actually (or you would have been, before the abuse). You're questioning a scientific model based on physics. Now, physics are not only an infinitely complex system, we're possibly not even aware of all the variables to boot. No one can 'prove' the model to be accurate, not even I with my enormous brain. So I have no means to beat you over the head with the truth.
Such a theory or model can, however, be disproven. Up to now, you're doing an awfully bad job at that, and unfortunately no links to other conspiracy nutters or youtube videos from 17 year old highschoolers will change that. And in 20 years time, should the rtcvb32s persist in this debate, their argument concerning controlled demolition and WTC collapse still is and will always only be:
NIST disproved it's own model when it was asked why it had failed to acknowledge that the WTC 7 collapse occurred at the rate of free-fall, and simply could not because they couldn't hide behind giant dust plumes as they did with the twin towers. And they eventually did acknowledge that that was the case.
As previously stated, I'll provide some credible sources, and we'll see whether or not you can tear them apart.