Reply #81: You said that physics are what this thread is about.

[Make7]

In the opening post you said, "the small upper block above the impact area falls like a sledgehammer onto the rest of the building, crushing it completely as if it were made of nothing but air..." You also said, "The descent of the upper block once started is never interrupted it just keeps falling smoothly all the way to the ground, at a freefall rate of speed..."

From the MacQueen and Szamboti paper you linked to in Post #1, I took a velocity chart and added a line to indicate how far from free fall their measurements actually were. I was hoping you could reconcile the discrepancy between your statements about "freefall rate of speed", "as if it were made of nothing but air", and what the data actually seems to indicate.

The authors even state in their paper that based on their measurements the fall velocity of the tower was "about 71% of the free fall velocity". Perhaps you should contact the authors of that paper and notify them that their data is incorrect based on your opinion.

I have invited you to modify the chart, or post raw data, to illustrate the points you have been making but you have declined to do so. This discussion is not "pointless theorizing" to me (as it apparently is to you). The discrepancy between a theoretical free fall rate and that indicated by actual recorded data has yet to be explained by anyone espousing the free fall talking point. Perhaps you are aware of someone that has an explanation and you could provide a link. At this point it is obvious that you are unable to explain why there is such a difference between the things you say and the what the measured data indicates.

- Make7