Reply #92: Back up.

[freedom fighter jh]

You said that the panels' falling faster than the debris showed that the collapse was happening slower than freefall.

I said Not so fast -- it could be that the panels fell *faster* than freefall and the collapse happened at freefall. That is, there is another possibility. I NEVER SAID THAT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. I only used that possibility to point out the fallacy in your argument -- the relative speeds of the main part of the building and that falling degree do not prove that the collapse happened at a speed slower than free fall.

If you want to assert that in fact the relative speeds do show that the collapse happened at a speed slower than freefall, then it's up to you to make that case. You have not made the case yet.