These pseudoskeptics like to defend NIST's lack of investigating the actual collapses by saying it wasn't necessary... global collapse was inevitable. Yea, that sounds pretty scientific to me... that implies, there is no need to entertain the idea that some other force i.e. explosives were used... because according to this harebrained theorizing... they weren't needed...

So, what does all of that mean? It means that the biggest piece of evidence JEFers have to backup the NIST theory is that THE TOWERS FELL DOWN! I MEAN *^#*$&#*! We want evidence that NIST's report is accurate... and what do we get, but this classic exchange:

JEFer: The towers fell man... I mean it was inevitable!

Truther: Why was it inevitable... even though we've never seen these types of collapses outside of some sort of pre-planned demolition?

JEFer: Because, the buildings fell down, DUH!

Truther: Yea, but if it was inevitable, than why hasn't this ever happened before?

JEFer: You stupid... now look at my cat that I dressed up in military garb. MEOOOW!

How can anyone seriously debate with these people? They have absolutely nothing... In some of the most pitiful attempts at debunking the world has ever seen... they try to compare a frickin roof caving in on a toy factory, to the total collapses of three steel-structured skyscapers... that all fell at virtual free fall speeds. They try to compare the Madrid fire... like it is even remotely comparable to these collapses... in fact, if anything... the Madrid fire clearly illustrates what a natural (fire induced) collapse might look like i.e. parts of the structure slowly falling off in a very random fashion... and the Madrid building burned for almost a day and was completely consumed in fire.

The Twin Towers, on the other hand...had fire burning in them for ONLY a fricking hour or so... had differing degrees of damage... the upper mass on each building was significantly different in size and weight... yet both of these modern marvels of structural engineering... went from showing no signs of impending collapse...to suddenly exploding down into dust and debris in mere seconds... I MEAN LITERAL SECONDS!

The NIST Report is such a whitewash. What is there to even debate about it? It doesn't even discuss the science behind how the buildings actually fell... WHY? Because, if they tried to... they would be met with a lot of criticism. WHY? BECAUSE THOSE COLLAPSES were improbable! WHY? The NIST EVEN agrees that a pancake collapse was not possible on the Twin Towers... YET, barring explosives being used... THAT HAD TO OF BEEN THE TYPE OF COLLAPSE!

The NIST even describes the collapse as a pancake collapse, and then proceeds to say... but this isn't a pancake collapse, because that type of collapse isn't possible on these structures.

If the Twin Towers collapsed... in a top/down floor by floor progressive manner... than you tell me what the floors were doing if not pancaking? NIST claims that the upper mass was increasing in size... so how was that occurring without the upper mass and lower floors stacking or joining together? Were the lower floors just exploding into a million pieces of rubble and then fusing onto the upper mass, and if so... what was taking out the core columns... I mean, explain this PLEASE!

You know what... you can't. You people like to say yer critical thinkers... but yer not. Every time a Truther makes a great point... a JEFers always comes back with, "Oh, well what makes you so smart... how come ALL of the experts agree with the NIST report?"

Firstly, all of the experts don't agree, Mr. Strawman... but, what this statement does tell us.. is that the JEFers are literally a bunch of herd following, mindless sheeple. They have a belief... that if all or virtually all of the so-called experts agree on something or claim to agree on something that it must be the infallible truth... and thus, it can't be refuted... and thus, there is no reason to even think for yourself... because if you come to a conclusion that is in opposition to this infallible truth... you must be crazy... and thus, one must keep twisting their findings... until it mirrors whatever the collective scientific community has already stated... and thus, there is no critical thinking... only mindless, groupthinking.

What I want... is links to all of these experts, who in their own words... claim that the outer columns bowed, and that is what helped initiate the collapse of the buildings. That's what I want. I want to hear it from each of these individual experts.

And, if no one can provide, such evidence... than we must assume, that we don't know these experts, individual positions on the NIST report.

I stopped reading here.

Yea, and you stopped thinking... well, before that. You have nothing, kid... so leave the big ideas and issues up to people who actually know how the world operates.

As did I.

Not understanding an argument != Argument is unsound.

Remember that, 28th.

he was illustrating the methods that posters over at jref use to distract the reader from the original issue by making off topic remarks about their cats etc...

if it's not true then why did you post in this thread without even making a comment about the collapses?

What is initiation ? You then also can stop at the point where the nose of the plane hits the building.

(start jref modus)
Don't you understand that no construction on earth could withstand this sh1tload of kinetic energy, tons of gallons of fuel, bla bla, here is my cat

http://83.136.68.93/cgi-bin/seigbest.pl
(end jref modus)

I don't know what stooping to insults in has to do with finding the truth, but if it makes you feel better than good for you.

If you are refering to me I hope you understand what jref modus means. If I really start insulting then beware...

yea no one here has insulted anyone and only posted the insults of others to point out the immaturity level of the jrefers

Which obviously helps discover the truth. Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below).

Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon." NIST FAQ #2

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Let me point out how unbelievably fruity the NIST is. They are comparing the initiation of the collapse to the actual collapse itself. They clearly state that this wasn't a pancake collapse... but INSTEAD, it was some sort of weird non-progressive collapse initiation i.e. bowing outer columns. Oh, I get it... a collapse didn't even occur... it was only a collapse initiation.

So, what is this new non-progressive collapse initiation called, anyway? Don't you see how NIST was talking about the actual collapse in the first paragraph... but in the 2nd paragraph, they switched from the collapse to the initiation of the collapse.

"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom ... the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward." NIST FAQ #2

Classic Doublespeak. They say that the floors did NOT fail progressively, and then they say video evidence showed unambiguously that the collapse of floors progressed from the top to the bottom.

I have asked this of the JEFers before... and I will ask it again, as this is one of the times they turned into a bunch of chuckleheads with cat pics. NIST says that the pancake theory is not possible on these types of structures, and then they proclaim that the floors did NOT fail progressively like a pancake collapse, but instead the outer columns bowed inward and WHAT? How did the floors collapse after the outer columns failed? If not progressively like a pancake collapse, than HOW? Well, the NIST has that covered as well... here's what they say:

"As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it--much like the action of a piston--forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially ... the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."

So, I want a JEFer to tell me... how the collapse of the Twin Towers differentiated from a pancake collapse. That is the 3.5 billion dollar question...

LOL, 3 posts in this thread and the closest thing to a comment you have givin to the subject of the OP is "I stopped reading here". Sounds like you really care about the truth :lol: :rolleyes:

Here a nice peer-reviewed paper addressing 28th Kingdom's concerns:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b...C-6-23-2006.pdf

If you don't agree with it, just write to Zdenfk P. Bažant or Mathieu Verdure. As scientists they will take your arguments into consideration.
If they don't, you should write a peer-reviewed paper yourself explaining why they got it wrong.

Thanks.

Also posted in the WTC thread...

The collapse didn't begin when the outer columns bowed, amigo... it began when the fricking upper mass (which is just a stack of floors) started to fall through the impact floors which had failed. Do you see any collapse in this video... watch at the very end where the outer columns snap:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-RzwmD8uB8g

Isn't it so convenient... that NIST ends their simulation BEFORE THE COLLAPSE EVEN BEGINS! Besides, those (impact) floors did break away from the outer columns (according to this video) so what did they do after that? Didn't they fall down onto the floors below?!

And, how many floors did the trusses sag on... did this happen on all four sides of each tower? This video only shows one floor sagging and breaking the outer columns... Are you kidding me?

Dude, you've got mental issues... OKAY, the impact floors failed... okay... that's how the upper floors came down and hit the lower floors (below the impact zone)... okay... the first lower floor failed and came down on the next floor... okay... and what's the problem here? (Well, this is what had to of happened if there were no explosives)

Can't you tell by the video above... that there was no collapse until the impact floors failed (broke away from the outer columns) causing the UPPER FLOORS to fall! Who cares if the outer columns bowed on the impact floors... that was part of the failure on those floors...which ultimately allowed the upper FLOORS to fall down through the impact floors and onto the lower floors. From this point, the lower floors failed top to bottom in a sequential manner... as the UPPER MASS INCREASED in size! That is a Pancake Collapse.

Please... stop the word play... Pancake Theory and Pancake Collapse... I see what yer trying to do here... NIST has drawn you into this little myopic viewpoint, where you can't even see what the hell is going on.

The reason this is so hard to communicate... is because IT'S ABSURD! A Pancake Collapse is not possible on these types of structures... so a Pancake Collapse DIDN'T HAPPEN... that's the POINT! The floors DIDN'T pancake... they were exploding (floor by floor) in a downward sequence... that created the illusion that the building was falling down on itself (pancaking) when in reality... it was just exploding (floor by floor) in a downward wave.

You haven't answered my question... the initiation of the collapse was the impact floors failing... and if the outer columns bowed, than that was simply a part of the failure... the NIST video (above) still shows the impact floors breaking away from the outer columns (just like yer so-called Pancake Theory) at which point THE COLLAPSE BEGINS I.E. THE IMPACT AND UPPER FLOORS FALL ONTO THE LOWER FLOORS CAUSING THEM TO FAIL IN A SEQUENTIAL MANNER I.E. A PANCAKE THEORY AND/OR COLLAPSE!

You've ALL been DEBUNKED, get over it!

"No skyscraper has ever before collapsed due to fire."

Thanks for the link... more confirmation that the NIST is bunk.

I'm not sure if that is NIST. I've read that paper twice of course didn't recalculate it and solving DE's etc, that would be a fulltime job.

As far as I can see and understand this is in fact a generalized Greening paper, but then not for point masses but a uniform 1d mass model, I have already too much questions. I was hoping that crush-up and crush-down would be included from the beginning but they use exactly the same model as Greening, correct me if I'm wrong. They include ejected mass and use a factor k_out (constant of course), but they don't take into account how much energy it required and they don't give explicit results, no value of k_out and no collapse time, it seems to be of the same order although it is covered by a cloud of dust. I see that they also refer to their old articles. Bazant is the same person that wrote a report 48 hours after the collapse and also the person that didn't give a derivation about the energy loss per storie. This article is surely of the highest mathematical level but it is a ramble. There will not be much debunkers or 'twoofers' who can really check it, but now they have a new link to post next to their picture of the pile of NIST wtc reports. To be continued.

As was suggested by Cassandra why don't you and 28th and maybe Look up get together and write a truly technical paper explaining the faults with these analysis. Do it in a respectful way and have your calculations and theories critiqued. Send copies to Zdenfk P. Bažant or Mathieu Verdure. See if they will answer your comments.
If not another idea is why don't the true believers pony up some money to have the papers read by structural engineers at a top university.

Superficial quote-mining is a weak answer to a scientific paper.

Come on, people.
You claim that the official version of the collapse "violates the laws of Physics".

I showed you a peer-reviewed paper quantifying the collapse.

Is it wrong? If so, why?

Please answer as befits a scientific discussion: with physical principles and equations.

You can also say: "I don't have the knowledge to study this paper".
That is fine, most people don't have this knowledge.
But then, admit that your claim "that the official version of the collapse violates the laws of Physics" is an empty claim.

But if this "violation of the laws of Physics" is so evident, surely a scientist can write a rebuttal.

The laws of physics can't be violated, because they (by definition) imply what happens. The question with the wtc is if the way they collapse can be explained by only the plane. The energy picture is valid and under some favourable assumptions you can derive a collapse equation. But the validness of the energy picture is no proof that it happens in that way but a requirement.

Building 7 also doesn't violate the laws of physics, it can't violate the laws of physics because a few explosives triggered a collapse and gave the building an initial kinetic energy and momentum.

If you assume that no explosives were used for wtc7 then it looks like the laws are violated. Since that is impossible the solution then is to add the explosives to the picture. From a different point of view the only licensed blaster I've heard talking about wtc7 (and who wanted to talk about it) confirmed it was a controlled demolition. We have the proof of that on raw (unedited and not out of context) video. And I am sure and I swear the truth movement will not die until this becomes the official explanation.

Of course the laws of physics can't be violated, einsteen.
What CTers mean is that the official theory is in contradiction with the laws of physics, and thus false.
The paper I quoted claims differently, and proves that no explosives are needed to bring down the WTC.
I think we agree here.

Well, I heard Jowenko, haven't seen any calculation by him.
I fear that the NIST-report on WTC7 will disappoint you. We will see, no need to speculate.

A quote from a licensed blaster, though a good thing to have, is not definitive proof. Did he walk around inside to see what the damage was, where the fires were?

Yes, he could tell you if it resembled a CD, that's his area. But what does he know about buildings sustaining serious damage and their structural collapse due to engineering failing?

You certainly didn't do this.
Please answer as befits a scientific discussion: with physical principles and equations.


At least explain how the laws of physics are violated by any explanation other than explosives (invisibles one except to people with extraordinary imagination)

In respect of Jowenko
How much stake would you put in someone who views one video from a bad angle and is willing to make a "professional" opinion. I sure you would not put any stake in it if he disagreed with you as he does on the other towers.

Man, the speed at which all three of these buildings fell violates the law of physics... and many people have already explained this. Here is one decent video that covers this topic:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

I mean... WTC 7 could have been made of playdoh, and it would have provided more resistance than the steel in this building. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE for these steel structured high-rise buildings to fall as fast as they did. In fact, it doesn't even begin to approach the law of physics.

JREFers even argue, how close they fell to free fall speeds... EVEN THOUGH yer beloved NIST clearly states, that the towers DID, in fact, come down at essentially free fall speeds.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-RzwmD8uB8g

If you can't view things on this most basic level, and understand how utterly impossible it was for these buildings to collapse the way they did, than nothing is going to help you.

If I were to present some abstract equation, we could go on forever arguing about the logistics of it... but there is one fundamental law that you can't refute and that is the speed at which an object falls. And, the speed at which the towers collapsed (fell)... violates this law. Why? Because a very basic understanding of physics (you know like... solid steel can't pass through solid steel) tells us... that the steel had to provide significant resistance to the collapses... yet, it provided virtually ZERO resistance... and, that defies science.

That's basically saying the steel in WTC 7 had physical properties comparable to cardboard or paper. And, that's NOT Strawman... I mean, what material would have provided less resistance than the steel in WTC 7? Think about it... use hypothetical situations... like, okay, if this building was made of balsa wood... would it have collapsed any faster than this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

TomBombadillo,

You could easily use Greening's paper and then set

n=0
E1=0

and change the height of the wtc1,2 storeys to the ones of wtc7 and change the 510000000kg to the mass of wtc7.

I can write an A4 with math if you want, but there is no need to do that.

There is no need to use these explicit results because wtc7 didn't pancake and there is no initial kinetic energy to overcome an amount of per-storey strain energy.

In fact wtc7 is a crush-up collapse, in fact Greening's second stage of collapse, which in fact means the whole building falls one story at the bottom first.

You know what that means Tom...

Something I posted in another thread:

Do you know what free fall is? Do you understand it's based on a scientific law....which means it's not someone's opinion... do you understand, that large steel beams provide more resistance to a falling object than air? Come on now... are you still with me? WTC 7 fell in virtual free fall... watch this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

Tell me.... what kind of images go through yer head, when you watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Do you even understand what yer seeing? Do you know how tall that building is? You think damage on one side of this building... caused every floor on every side... TO NOT ONLY FAIL SIMULTANEOUSLY... but to do so... at a speed, which was less than half a second longer than the fastest the building could have collapsed according to the laws of science...

Don't you think steel provides more resistance than paper? Don't you think it provides more resistance than cardboard? If this building was made out of cardboard... do you think it would have fell even faster? Do you understand the building couldn't have fell faster than free fall? Do you understand, this means the building could not have collapsed more than half a second faster, regardless if it was made out of silly string? Doesn't that tell you something?

You think this collapse and damage was actually caused by the upper mass colliding with the lower floors? Even, after watching this vid, which clearly shows crushed concrete shooting out of the sides of the building before the upper mass begins to move:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5217400169297377811

You really think this upper mass (which was composed of the same material as the lower floors) just plowed it's way through the entire structure... completely shredding and pulverizing it... while this magical upper mass, which was made out of the same materials... suffered no such damage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UjzihyYrYw

You really believe this? Raise, yer hand and swear on something you hold dear...that you really believe this...

YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THIS... you can't... no way... there IS NO WAY YOU BELIEVE THIS! So, cut it out... cut the games... and just stop it already.

Trying to say the WTC towers weren't brought down with some sort of explosives is insanity... NOT because it's my opinion, but because the simplest of scientific laws... tells us that these buildings couldn't have possibly fell that fast.

Such a blank statement, coming from someone who doesn't even grasp the concept of acceleration, doesn't carry much weight.

But you can show the world wrong, of course.

You claim that the "buildings couldn't have possibly fell that fast."

Why don't you post a calculation proving this?
You know, with formulas and numbers. Not just rants and ellipses.

And don't forget to tell us where Bazant's article is wrong.

Please answer as befits a scientific discussion: with physical principles and equations.

I have a better way of doing this... why don't you tell me how fast you think WTC 7 could have fell at free fall... and, then how fast you think WTC 7 fell... and then how close to free fall would WTC 7 have to fall before you said... Um, yea... there had to be some type of explosives used... to make it come down this fast.

Can you answer any of this? I mean... such simple, straight-forward questions... JREFers can't ever answer a question with a straight answer... they're like politicians... in the way they use semantics to avoid issues...

PLEASE... just tell us a couple of yer beliefs so that I can enlighten you!

No dear, that's not how the real world functions. :)
Shifting the burden of proof is really admitting defeat.
Your claim, your obligation to prove it.

You claimed: "Trying to say the WTC towers weren't brought down with some sort of explosives is insanity... NOT because it's my opinion, but because the simplest of scientific laws...tells us that these buildings couldn't have possibly fell that fast."

That's a bold statement, shared by almost no structural engineer, physicist, scientist IN THE WHOLE WORLD.

So please show us why these buildings couldn't have possibly fell that fast.
Your rants and ellipses convince no one, believe me. :)

Please answer as befits a scientific discussion: with physical principles and equations.

Damn... I just lost my temper... oh wow - lemme try to reply without 50 expletives... if this were my forum, you'd be banned... yea I said it... and I don't care if others agree... yer not serious about finding the truth... yer only here to argue...

How can I put this lightly... yer a clown! Understand that? Are we making sense over here? You sit there and Strawman my post to death... and, then try to act like I'm just opining... I didn't make a blank statement... because if you read all of the words I wrote before the, "Trying..." line... you will see, that I had already proved my case.

If I were to tell you how fast I think WTC could have fell at free fall... and then how fast I think it fell... the only thing you're gonna be able to debate is how fast you think the building fell... and how fast it would have fell at free fall, you with me so far?

I don't need to create my own equations to prove this point... see, the problem, is that everyone thinks they can argue how fast WTC 7 would have fell at free fall and how fast it actually fell... and that's a joke. (And, don't bring up posts of mine that you have never seen but only heard about... okay?)

I'm not debating the entire scientific community... I am debating you... and I'm whooping yer arse. Do you have anything to offer us... besides empty nothing responses? I mean.. do you? Do you know how to engage in debate? DO YOU? TELL ME... PLEASE!

Is it impossible for you to tell us anything you believe? Are you scared to do so for fear of being ridiculed? Are you scared to actually commit to a belief... for fear of me taking that belief and proving how utterly stupid you are? Is that what's going on here? I believe so...

JREFers are like fvcking critics...see, they don't actually do anything positive or contribute anything to the world... they simply observe shit... and then try to break it down...

And critics... as you might know... are some of the most lowly, sad, pathetic individuals... on the face of the earth... they have no talent... or substance... so the only way they can get any attention is by attaching themselves to someone else's fame.

Let me give you an example. SCREW LOOSE CHANGE!

This is such an easy question to answer. The answer that CTers always ignore.

Watch this clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr_FIFcoVTo

Note. That huge chunks fall to the left and right. See at 19 seconds there's already a huge chunk fallen out of view, while the main collapse is little more than half way down.

That chunk fell at free fall speed. The rest didn't. Not even close. Why? Because it met resistance.

If you ignore this, don't come up with a good explanation of your 'free fall' belief I will take the silence to this as you're admitting you're wrong. I will take any response that doesn't immediatly answer this debunking as you're admitting you're wrong.

I want an answer.

Oh right... like I'm ever gonna ignore someone who actually engages me... thanks for at least doing something... as oppose to these other useless critics. Now, watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UjzihyYrYw

And notice... how long the collapse is either ahead or even with the falling debris on the outside... it is quite a while... and now notice how the debris starts to shoot past the collapse.

"That chunk fell at free fall speed. The rest didn't. Not even close. Why? Because it met resistance."

Oh nice try... hehe, but explosives we're used, which means that this falling debris (chunk) had more than just gravity on it's side... it had the energy from the (explosive) blast propelling it...

I bet you didn't expect such a clever answer did you? If you choose to engage me in debate, you will have no other choice but to awaken.

Cassandra... here you go:

It is true that we may never know the exact collapse times of the WTC Towers, because they were obscured at the bottom... However, we can time a portion of the collapses... and the information collected here... will still give us the scientific evidence in which we are seeking... so, please view this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

I know you probably don't like videos... but in this instance, a video is necessary to calculate the exact speed of the collapses. Okay... so there are two things you can debate here... you can either say, that the height measured in this video isn't actually 100 meters... or that the free fall speed for this distance would have been quicker than the video states.

Thanks for your input... I look forward to discussing this with you. :)

Well, that must be the saddest post I ever read on a forum.

You insult, you rant, but no physics, no equation, nothing.
And you certainly didn't "whoop my arse". Actually, irl, you won't get anywhere near to it.

Ok, last try.

Look what you wrote elsewhere:

(source)

That holds for you too, dear.

You claimed: "Trying to say the WTC towers weren't brought down with some sort of explosives is insanity... NOT because it's my opinion, but because the simplest of scientific laws...tells us that these buildings couldn't have possibly fell that fast."

That's a bold statement, shared by almost no structural engineer, physicist, scientist IN THE WHOLE WORLD.

So please show us why these buildings couldn't have possibly fell that fast.
Your rants and ellipses convince no one, believe me. :)

Please answer as befits a scientific discussion: with physical principles and equations.
Not with meaningless videos like in your last post. That's not how a scientific discussion proceeds.

The good news for you is I won't ask it again. If you can only answer with rants and ellipses, so be it. But maybe, for once, you can provide something more?

Surprise me, dear. :)

Hey sweetie... I like this... yer my sweetie and I'm yer dear... now please view this post that I made right before your last one:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...post&p=12120199

I am making specific claims here... so please engage me in this debate, by telling me what you disagree with.

EDIT: Oh, I just caught the last part of yer message... how do we discuss the collapse times without looking at video? I have made a claim i.e. that WTC 7 collapsed at virtual free fall. So what data do I need to back up this claim? Well, I need video analysis, showing the speed at which WTC 7 collapsed, which I provided here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

And, we also need to know... what would be the time it would take WTC 7 to free fall the distance measured in this video i.e. 100 meters. That answer would be approx. 4.5 seconds. So what equation do you need from me? Please, tell me, because I think I have provided all of the scientific data to backup what I am claiming. Thanks. :)

From the clip you linked to, i think it shows again how lots of debris falls faster than the main collapse.

Let me ask, going back to my clip, if it had 'more than gravity on its side', how big would the explosion have to be to shift such a large chunk of the building?

Can you show me another CD where explosives have forced material downwards at a rate much faster than gravity?

To 'awaken' me you will need an arguement better than 'but explsoives were used'. You'll need something to back that up.

John Gross of NIST explicitly describes the collapse as such, "Well...the video speaks for itself."

How scientific.

No offence, but your video states 'near free fall speed', when it's easy to see debris falling at free fall speed much faster than the rest of the collapse.

I'd say 'near free fall speed' isn't a scientific term either.

Hello... I don't even understand your point... My video shows that the collapse was noticeably ahead of the falling debris at one point... and the speed of the collapse was supposedly increasing as the upper mass increased in size.

So you tell me... how did the debris not only catch up to the collapse but then shoot past it? If the collapse was always moving slower than free fall, and the falling debris was always falling at free fall... than how do you explain the collapse ever being ahead of the falling debris?

Does the falling debris look like it's falling straight down? Or does it have an arch to it like it's been shot out of a cannon?

"How big would the explosion have to be to shift such a large chunk of the building?"

This big: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMiBhvExvs

Look at videos of the collapses... look at the size of the dust cloud of crushed concrete and the distance the steel debris was ejected outwards... and just think... all of this was caused from the upper mass colliding with the lower floors... why didn't this magical upper mass, which was made out of the same materials as the lower floors... turn into dust and debris like all of the lower floors it was impacting with?

Doesn't this simple visualization... show you how utterly ridiculous and impossible these collapses were?

Perhaps I'm seeing this differently to you. I'm seeing debris falling faster to collapse, to me that means the collapse isn't going at free fall.

That's how my mind works and to me that's the proof I need to show that the collapse was meeting resistance.

You're obviously seeing things differently. You're seeing it as being pushed by an explosion. Personally I don't see the evidence to back that up. Just my MHO.