"completely pulverize three of the largest skyscrapers in the world"
well almost happened
"bringing them directly down into the path of most resistance at freefall acceleration"
Did most of the mass of the towers really fall DOWN at freefall acceleration?
James, look at the video evidence with your own eyes.
If most of the towers mass fell down, how could most of it have been pulverized so perfectly and leave such a small rubble pile? If it was explosives or any kind of thermite why didn't most of the mass crash down on the ground (in large chunks) and cause the "bathtub", in which the towers stood, get cracks or even get completely destroyed? I have seen photos of the bathtub, that were taken after it had been cleaned out. It did not look like as if two 500,000 ton skyscrapers crashed down on it. Not to mention that there was never a lake of molten metal/steel in it.
Again James look at the video evidence carefully with your own eyes. It tells you what did NOT happen.
Yes, they fell down at freefall acceleration.
If there was ANY resistance to their falling, they would have taken 3 times (or more) as long to fall.
Lets take a cue ball, drop it off the top of the towers. If it bounced off of just one floor on its way down, that takes 3 times as long.
If you take 110 cue balls and place one at every floor, and then you have this electric eye that sees the one above it fall past, and an electric apparatus kicks it off so it begins falling too, then the last que ball hits the ground 3.5 times as long as the buildings took to fall.
The only way something falls at free fall speeds is that it runs into nothing on its way down.
You are correct that 500,000 tons of skyscraper did not have much impact on the landing spot.
This has been theorized that the buildings were turned to powder. And powder has a much slower terminal velocity. The powder fell and was sent in huge dunes all over New York City.
Now, there are many reports of rivers of molten metal under the building.
The firefighters having to get new boots almost every day because the heat was melting the soles.
Thermographic satellites showed the twin tower location as very hot for months after the collapse.
Further, the weirdest fact is that cars in the area had their sides delaminated. The literally had layers of the sheet metal peeled off. Nothing that we commonly work with does that.
"Yes, they fell down at freefall acceleration."
Most of the material of the towers was turned into dust in mid air. Dust doesn't fall at free fall acceleration in air. Just because you see the "reaction" going on from top to bottom at nearly free fall acceleration, it doesn't mean that most of the buidling fell as rubble from the top floors down to the ground at free fall acceleration. The rubble pile was very small compared to the original height of the buidlings. Do you get what I mean?! It was meant to look like as if the towers collapsed into their footsprints at free fall acceleration, when actually most of the material was turned into dust in mid air before ever reaching the ground.
I have seen photos of the bathtub. There were no signs of previous molten metal. If there was a lake of molten metal, they couldn't have cleaned out the bathtub in such a short amount of time like they did. How do you remove a massive block of steel from a bathtub? Also if the heat melted the soles of the workers, their feet would have been cooked long before that. How did they use their hydraulic equipment when it was supposedly so hot at the site? I believe this molten metal lake stuff is all disinformation. There is not one single photo that shows a lake of molten metal beneath the rubble of the twin towers. But there are photos of a perfectly cleaned out bathtub at ground zero.
I was there. There were fires burning for weeks. No molten lake or talk of.
The only coherent and plausible theory I heard of is that of Dimitri Khalezov's with his third truth. The rest is disinformation or ignorance at least.