Dropping three bodies Consider the usual three-body problem with   Newtonian
$1/r^2$ force between masses.   Let the three masses start off at rest,
and not collinear.  Then they will become  collinear a finite time   later  by a theorem
I proved some time ago. (See the papers "Infinitely Many Syzygies"
and "The zero angular momentum three-body problem: all but one solution has syzygies"
available on my web site or the arXivs.) Let $t_c$ denote the first such time.
Write $r_{ij} (t)$ for the distance between mass
$i$  and mass $j$ at time $t$.  
Question 1.  For general masses $m_i >0$, is it true that the "moment of inertia"
$I = m_1 m_2 r_{12}^2 +  m_2 m_3 r_{23}^2 +  m_1 m_3 r_{13}^2$
monotonically decreases over the interval $(0, t_c)$?
Question 2.  If the masses are all equal and if the initial side-lengths
satsify $0  < r_{12}(0) < r_{23} (0)< r_{13} (0)$
is it true that these inequalities remain in force:  $0 < r_{12} (t) < r_{23} (t) < r_{13}(t)$
for $0  < t < t_c$?  In other words: if the triangle starts off as scalene (not isosceles, and having nonzero area) does it remain scalene up to collinearity?
Motivation:   The space of collinear triangles, consisting of triangles of zero area,
acts   like a global Poincare section for the zero-angular momentum, negative energy 
three-body problem. To obtain some understanding of  the return map from this space   to itself the 
"brake orbits"-- those solutions for which all velocities vanish at some instant -- seem to play an organizing role.
Answering either questions would yield useful information about brake orbits. 
Aside: I suspect that if the answers  to either question is yes for the standard $1/r^2$ force, then it is also yes for any attractive "power law"  $1/r^a$ force between masses, any $a > 0$.

added, Sept 20, 2010.  The bounty is for an answer to either question 1 or 2.
I've made partial progress toward  2 using variational methods
(direct method of the calculus of variations). I can prove that if a syzygy
is chosen anywhere in a neighborhood of binary collision (so $r_{12}(t_c) = \delta$, small, $r_{23} (t_) = r_{13}(t_c) + \delta$)
then there exists a brake orbit solution
arc ending in this syzygy and satisfying the  inequality of question 2. 
The proof suggests, but does not prove, that the result holds locally near
isosceles, meaning  for brake initial conditions
in a neighborhood of isosceles brake initial conditions ( so
$r_{13} (0) = r_{12} (0) + \epsilon$). If I had uniqueness [modulo rotation and reflection] of brake orbits with specified syzygy endpoints, then my proof would yield a proof of this local version of the alleged theorem.
Unfortunately, my proof does not exclude the possibility of more than one orbit  ending in the chosen syzygy, one of which violates the inequality.
 A: I believe your first proof is trivial since any 3 points may always be placed on a plane and since their gravity will attract along the plane they will remain on it in perpetuity. Then any 2 points say $a$ and $b$ can be placed on a line and their centre of gravity plotted on the line.
Since the centre of gravity of $a$ and $b$ is on this line, this line must accelerate across the plane towards $c$ until $c$ crosses the line.  For $c$ never to reached $ab$ would require the entire system to be generating a state of its own perpetual acceleration opposing the direction from $c$ to its nearest point on $ab$, and creating a perpetual angular acceleration around the centre of gravity of $a$ and $b$; a contradiction since there is no fourth mass with respect to which the system $abc$ could be accelerating.
Moving on to the monotonic decrease in momentum, if we choose $c$ such that $c$ is the body which passes between the other two then holding the line $ab$ as a reference point, $a$ and $b$ must move towards each other along $ab$ so $I_{ab}$ monotonically decreases, and $c$ moves towards some point between $a$ and $b$ until it passes between them so again $I_{ca}+I_{cb}$ must decrease monotonically.
Re the final part, the triangles will remain scalene until $t_c$ but will not necessarily do so in perpetuity. This is because it will be the body which is closest to the other two which passes between them. If we draw a scalene triangle, exactly one of the vertices connects the shortest two sides. This body (say $a$) will move between the other two and since it is closer to both of the other two than they are to each other, it will approach both of them faster than they close the distance between each other.
Furthermore due to the inverse square law it will approach the body nearest to it faster than it approaches the other, and therefore there is no means by which the ordering of their distances can change before $a$ reaches the line between $b$ and $c$, which is what would be required to create an isosceles or equilateral triangle from a scalene one. 
