http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-26/join-we-are-change-atlanta-plaza-t...

Great Graphics.

Why is this false claim prominently featured in an advertisement? I'm sure that Richard Gage knows that WTC 1&2 collapsed at less than free fall acceleration, and WTC 7 (visible exterior, at least) collapsed at free fall acceleration only during the first couple of seconds, or so.* Why not ask him about these claims, being that ae911truth's name is being used?

Even changing the verbiage to "nearly free fall acceleration" (which is what the ae911truth.org website says) is problematic, because nobody has produced a definitive theory of collapse that everybody can agree reliably predicts collapse speeds. Even if such a theory was believed to exist, how would it be rigorously tested?

The WTC 7 collapse is highly damning for a non-conspiratorial scenario, from the point of view of it's free fall acceleration phase. But how can you hope to credibly argue about CD for WTC 1&2, using false premises? What's going on here? Somebody trying to take ae911truth down?

Now, if you watch David Chandler's video "Race with Gravity", he plots the 'speed' of the "demolition wave", and finds that the 'acceleration' of the demolition wave is actually 'faster' than free falling pieces of the WTC tower. (His video is on youtube, here.) However, that still doesn't qualify as the physical collapse of the building, itself. At least, that's not how most people, debunkers and 911 truthers alike, would consider the collapse of the building, itself.** After all, one could easily create a demolition wave which outpaces gravity, but make the demolition of such little impact, that the building remains standing.

So, you have to estimate the collapse time of the building according to what you can see, which is a problem, since by the time the collapse is ending, it's pretty well obscured. (Alternatively, you can try and use the seismic records.)

* The debunkers make a big deal about the collapse of the WTC 7 penthouse, and act like they know details of a broadening, interior collapse. But they are dishonest, filling in the chasms between their more reasonable speculations and facts with speculations that are nothing more than guesses, covered over with bluster and wishful thinking. I'm not happy about some 911 truth claims, either, but at least I think the truther mistakes are honest ones.

** An analogy. If you go out at night, and point your flashlight at one star, and then take 1 second to point it at another, you cannot say that the electromagnetic light waves have traveled faster than the speed of light. If the stars are separated by 100 light years, nothing physical or even electromagnetic traveled at the speed of 100 light-years/1 sec.

If you define a fictitious speed as "the distance between pointed-to stars divided by the time it took to point from one, to the other", then yeah, sure, this fictitious speed is faster than the speed of light! However, defining speed this way will get an exasperated look from your physics teacher.