Apart from a 'touché' on this back and fourth, what part of 2.25 second FREEFALL is challenged by the presence of concrete in these buildings?
The presence of concrete does not challenge freefall. Freefall is challenged and rebutted by the video data that shows unequivocally that at least one part of the building fell at a FASTER rate than gravity acceleration. That's a fact you'll have to live with.
What does it matter to 7 World Trade on the day?
Windsor and orient stand testament to their strength, not to WTC's weakness.
Not Windsor's steel, certainly. That speaks badly of steel under fire, don't you think?
Upright after total exhaustively ferocious fire many hours longer than 911 - they did not disintegrate in mid-air; did not drop into 'pools of molten metal' in crumpled free fallen piles. Admittedly there were not the dozens of eyewitness accounts of explosive events recorded at WTC to complete the comparison,
There were numerous reports of explosions in the Windsor building, didn't you know that? It happened in my country. I was following the news. The reporters mentioned several occasional explosions.
File that under "oops", or maybe under "touché" together with the concrete of the Windsor and the Mandarin Oriental Hotel.
but, that They and EVERY other steel framed high-rise in history stood under 'normal office furnishings' fires, argues AGAINST the sunder hypothesis claiming much LESS fire created much MORE wtc damage.
That's totally off of reality. Every other fire in every other steel framed high-rise in history was fought. And the fires in WTC7 were bigger and more significant than you seem to be willing to admit.
The argument number 7 symmetrically 'free fell' after asymmetric damage to one front and small unconnected ranging fires axially expanding one girder off one core column seat out of 81 columns on one floor out of 47 - causing complete disintegration in 7 seconds MOL - by that same energy expended to damage ratio the ferocity of fires produced in orient and Windsor would have vaporised them.
The amount of energy released matters little - vérinage demolitions use a minimal amount of energy, and no explosives, to induce a cascade collapse and let the building end up as a pile on the floor.
Arguing WTC7 fell TOO FAST to be demolition 'therefore is not one,' defies all reason, or, here, defines it.
Hmm, you're not paying attention. You were using the «unprecedented» meme (which I see you've dropped after it backfired every single time) to claim that since the fall at free fall was unprecedented in building fires, it had to be a demolition. I turned YOUR argument upside down to show you how that argument was silly and baseless: it was also unprecedented by building demolition standards; should we conclude that therefore it was not a demolition? I did it to show the flaw in YOUR argument. I'm not claiming that it's too fast for a demolition and therefore it's not one; it's YOU who were claiming that it was too fast for a building collapse and therefore it wasn't one. All I wanted to do is show you that that argument doesn't hold water.
In reality, the fact that it fell faster than gravity
does not help at all with explaining whether it was a collapse or a demolition. THAT was my point.
But let me elaborate on why it matters that it fell faster. The typical truther claim is that the columns ceased to oppose resistance all at once, in order for the building (actually, the façade only) to fall in free fall. The underlying assumption is that there is no force pushing down other than the weight of the building, and therefore the opposing resistance must be zero for the acceleration to match gravity.
However, the fact that the building exceeded the acceleration of gravity proves unequivocally that there is a force pushing down other than the weight of the building, therefore destroying the no-other-force assumption. That means that the opposing resistance is
unknown and not necessarily zero, and the no-resistance claim is invalidated.
Don't worry if you don't understand, I didn't expect you to.
That any complex structure falling 'faster' than 'normal' demolition' exhibiting all the characteristics OF controlled demolition, not being investigated AS controlled demolition, is a crime at every conceivable level.
No it did not. Remember that daylight was visible from the bottom through the upper windows after the east penthouse collapsed. Or did you miss that? It indicates that that part of the building was already completely gone internally. By extrapolation it's easy to infer that the internal collapse happened prior to the façade falling, and that, guess what? doesn't happen in building demolitions, but has quite some precedents in building collapses.
