Another Year And The Ones Who Were Involved In 911

[daws101]

no .no evidence of explosives or accelerants were found.
if you are actually doing a paper or report ,then remember speculation is not fact.
the crapspiracy theorists you are talking to on this thread can't tell the difference.
if you're bullshiting it's a totally weak performance.

please be so kind as to trot out the DOCUMENT that states explosives were looked for and by what means and what sampling technique & how many samples were tested.
I really wanna know. where is it?

do your own homework there are hundreds of links to that info on this site alone.

My homework is just to talk to others about this. Get different views! I want different views I'm not sure on how much or what I believe is to be all true..

If that were true you would simply read any or all of the many threads here in the CONSPIRACY THEORY section of USMB to find what people have said and - at least for the non-CTs - how they came to their conclusions. Instead you have injected yourself into the fray with a preconceived CT bias and as you already stated "I'm aware we will probably never find the answer we want." Since you speak only for yourself here, what you obviously meant was never find the answer YOU want. Perhaps you'd be better served by finding the truth.

May I be so bold as to ask what is YOUR opinion of the real truth
that is the real explanation of what happened on 9/11/2001?

asked and answered.

 

[n0spam4me]

"by the time they got the order to launch it was all over..."

Therefore blaming an allegedly lame command & control structure ..... or?

Also note, it is a fact that the mainstream media has never sufficiently established that the hijackings actually happened. Being shown videos of alleged airliners performing stunts that defy the laws of physics does not constitute proof of anything.

 

[SAYIT]

"by the time they got the order to launch it was all over..."

Therefore blaming an allegedly lame command & control structure ..... or?

Also note, it is a fact that the mainstream media has never sufficiently established that the hijackings actually happened. Being shown videos of alleged airliners performing stunts that defy the laws of physics does not constitute proof of anything.

Once again you make clear that you consider nothing to be sufficient to prove "that the hijackings actually happened," preferring instead to believe that all who saw and recorded the attack, including the millions who witnessed the 2nd WTC attack on live TV, the entire international media and all gov't agents and agencies have been co-opted by some nefarious cabal which you can't name and whose existence you can't substantiate. There is a term which describes those who continually bang their empty heads against the wall of stupidity as you so consistently do ... INSANE.

 

[SAYIT]

please be so kind as to trot out the DOCUMENT that states explosives were looked for and by what means and what sampling technique & how many samples were tested.
I really wanna know. where is it?

do your own homework there are hundreds of links to that info on this site alone.

My homework is just to talk to others about this. Get different views! I want different views I'm not sure on how much or what I believe is to be all true..

If that were true you would simply read any or all of the many threads here in the CONSPIRACY THEORY section of USMB to find what people have said and - at least for the non-CTs - how they came to their conclusions. Instead you have injected yourself into the fray with a preconceived CT bias and as you already stated "I'm aware we will probably never find the answer we want." Since you speak only for yourself here, what you obviously meant was never find the answer YOU want. Perhaps you'd be better served by finding the truth.

May I be so bold as to ask what is YOUR opinion of the real truth
that is the real explanation of what happened on 9/11/2001?

asked and answered.

Many times. It is clear that nothing can penetrate NoSpammy's self-imposed blindness.

 

[SAYIT]

no .no evidence of explosives or accelerants were found.
if you are actually doing a paper or report ,then remember speculation is not fact.
the crapspiracy theorists you are talking to on this thread can't tell the difference.
if you're bullshiting it's a totally weak performance.

please be so kind as to trot out the DOCUMENT that states explosives were looked for and by what means and what sampling technique & how many samples were tested.
I really wanna know. where is it?

do your own homework there are hundreds of links to that info on this site alone.

My homework is just to talk to others about this. Get different views! I want different views I'm not sure on how much or what I believe is to be all true..

If that were true you would simply read any or all of the many threads here in the CONSPIRACY THEORY section of USMB to find what people have said and - at least for the non-CTs - how they came to their conclusions. Instead you have injected yourself into the fray with a preconceived CT bias and as you already stated "I'm aware we will probably never find the answer we want." Since you speak only for yourself here, what you obviously meant was never find the answer YOU want. Perhaps you'd be better served by finding the truth.

May I be so bold as to ask what is YOUR opinion of the real truth
that is the real explanation of what happened on 9/11/2001?

Sure, and I will again offer the same answer I always do:
4 passenger jets were hijacked by America-hatin' scummies who then slammed them into WTC 1 & 2, the Pentagon and a field near Shanksville, PA and as many doubts and questions as have been raised by disbelieving CTs, none of their alternative-universe scenarios make any sense to me, leaving only the official explanation standing.

 

[n0spam4me]

"none of their alternative-universe scenarios make any sense to me"

This is the crux of the matter, you lean on a sort of consensus opinion of what was alleged to have happened.

"millions who witnessed the 2nd WTC attack on live TV," Please examine closely what was shown on "live TV" note that the Michael Hezarkhani Video and the Evan Fairbanks video were not shown "live" but recorded and shown later. and even Evan Fairbanks commented that it looked like a bad special effect.

 

[SAYIT]

"none of their alternative-universe scenarios make any sense to me"

This is the crux of the matter, you lean on a sort of consensus opinion of what was alleged to have happened.

"millions who witnessed the 2nd WTC attack on live TV," Please examine closely what was shown on "live TV" note that the Michael Hezarkhani Video and the Evan Fairbanks video were not shown "live" but recorded and shown later. and even Evan Fairbanks commented that it looked like a bad special effect.

I lean on what I saw, read and heard that day and 13 years later the only explanation that makes any sense continues to be the official one.
That you continue to cling desperately to your silliness despite having all of it thoroughly and painstakingly refuted is not the failure of the rest of us to see things your way but rather your particular insanity.
Once again: No evidence of explosives or a controlled demo has ever been found, ergo the hijacked planes which so many of us saw slam into the WTC and the Pentagon must have been the cause.
Once again: case closed.

 

[n0spam4me]

"No evidence of explosives or a controlled demo"

PROVE IT! Where is the documentation that any tests were done?

 

[daws101]

"by the time they got the order to launch it was all over..."

Therefore blaming an allegedly lame command & control structure ..... or?

Also note, it is a fact that the mainstream media has never sufficiently established that the hijackings actually happened. Being shown videos of alleged airliners performing stunts that defy the laws of physics does not constitute proof of anything.

only in your mind, in reality it's more than enough.

 

[daws101]

"No evidence of explosives or a controlled demo"

PROVE IT! Where is the documentation that any tests were done?

asked and answered

 

[n0spam4me]

Fascinating Captain ...... Fascinating .....

So, WTC7 can drop at free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec
without any help from any other source of energy or any planning by anybody
but in response to fires & asymmetrical damage, the North & West walls drop and keep their shape as they drop.
is that it? ..... heavy stuff ....

 

[daws101]

Fascinating Captain ...... Fascinating .....

So, WTC7 can drop at free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec
without any help from any other source of energy or any planning by anybody
but in response to fires & asymmetrical damage, the North & West walls drop and keep their shape as they drop.
is that it? ..... heavy stuff ....

learn to read, only the a portion of north face was in freefall. the entire wtc 7 structure did not.
way to attempt to intentionally misstate the facts.
as to energy
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall

 

[n0spam4me]

Fascinating Captain ...... Fascinating .....

So, WTC7 can drop at free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec
without any help from any other source of energy or any planning by anybody
but in response to fires & asymmetrical damage, the North & West walls drop and keep their shape as they drop.
is that it? ..... heavy stuff ....

learn to read, only the a portion of north face was in freefall. the entire wtc 7 structure did not.
way to attempt to intentionally misstate the facts.
as to energy
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall

Way to stay on topic, I was addressing the fall of WTC 7 and then you had to drag in a page of numbers about the towers.
Give me a break!

Lets focus on WTC 7 shall we, the fact is that no matter what you call the falling mass, the bit that is visible in the video of WTC7 "collapsing" shows clearly the North & West walls of the building with the vertical line at the corner of these two walls being straight and vertical during the 2.25 sec of free fall and the physics of this being that the resistance would have to be removed, and removed all at the same time to achieve this result.

 

[daws101]

Fascinating Captain ...... Fascinating .....

So, WTC7 can drop at free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec
without any help from any other source of energy or any planning by anybody
but in response to fires & asymmetrical damage, the North & West walls drop and keep their shape as they drop.
is that it? ..... heavy stuff ....

learn to read, only the a portion of north face was in freefall. the entire wtc 7 structure did not.
way to attempt to intentionally misstate the facts.
as to energy
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall

Way to stay on topic, I was addressing the fall of WTC 7 and then you had to drag in a page of numbers about the towers.
Give me a break!

Lets focus on WTC 7 shall we, the fact is that no matter what you call the falling mass, the bit that is visible in the video of WTC7 "collapsing" shows clearly the North & West walls of the building with the vertical line at the corner of these two walls being straight and vertical during the 2.25 sec of free fall and the physics of this being that the resistance would have to be removed, and removed all at the same time to achieve this result.

false. the 2.25 sec of "freefall not significant.
I posted that equation in response to you energy comment if you understood it you'd know that it would be the same for wtc7
no lets not focus on wtc7 as they are all parts of the same event, if wtc one had not damaged wtc7 your fantasy never would have gotten started.

 

[n0spam4me]

The fact still remains that in order to produce the observed result .... that is WTC7 North & West walls seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, the resistance would have needed to be removed all at the same time for the entire falling mass, Just exactly how is that accomplished without it being an engineered event?

 

[daws101]

The fact still remains that in order to produce the observed result .... that is WTC7 North & West walls seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, the resistance would have needed to be removed all at the same time for the entire falling mass, Just exactly how is that accomplished without it being an engineered event?

false.
all that happened was the north face missed any impediments for that tiny amount of time.
it no proof of an engineered event..
try cause and effect

 

[n0spam4me]

The fact still remains that in order to produce the observed result .... that is WTC7 North & West walls seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, the resistance would have needed to be removed all at the same time for the entire falling mass, Just exactly how is that accomplished without it being an engineered event?

false.
all that happened was the north face missed any impediments for that tiny amount of time.
it no proof of an engineered event..
try cause and effect

"tiny amount of time" now you are trying to minimize the time, when if fact it is rather significant
and also there is the fact that the North & West walls moved in unison. Just exactly how does that fit in with your explanation?

 

[daws101]

The fact still remains that in order to produce the observed result .... that is WTC7 North & West walls seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, the resistance would have needed to be removed all at the same time for the entire falling mass, Just exactly how is that accomplished without it being an engineered event?

false.
all that happened was the north face missed any impediments for that tiny amount of time.
it no proof of an engineered event..
try cause and effect

"tiny amount of time" now you are trying to minimize the time, when if fact it is rather significant
and also there is the fact that the North & West walls moved in unison. Just exactly how does that fit in with your explanation?

who's minimizing? no matter how you want to spin it 2.25 sec is negligible.
so they move in unison ?was something else supposed to happen?

 

[n0spam4me]

The fact still remains that in order to produce the observed result .... that is WTC7 North & West walls seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, the resistance would have needed to be removed all at the same time for the entire falling mass, Just exactly how is that accomplished without it being an engineered event?

false.
all that happened was the north face missed any impediments for that tiny amount of time.
it no proof of an engineered event..
try cause and effect

"tiny amount of time" now you are trying to minimize the time, when if fact it is rather significant
and also there is the fact that the North & West walls moved in unison. Just exactly how does that fit in with your explanation?

who's minimizing? no matter how you want to spin it 2.25 sec is negligible.
so they move in unison ?was something else supposed to happen?

So many tons of material fall in a manner that doesn't suggest, but rather confirms the fact that the falling body has no resistance under it and the fall lasts for 2.25 sec, and you are trying to make this insignificant?
The West & North walls of WTC7 are seen falling without deformation for 2.25 sec and in that time the vertical line formed by the corner of the North & West walls is seen to be

The fact still remains that in order to produce the observed result .... that is WTC7 North & West walls seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, the resistance would have needed to be removed all at the same time for the entire falling mass, Just exactly how is that accomplished without it being an engineered event?

false.
all that happened was the north face missed any impediments for that tiny amount of time.
it no proof of an engineered event..
try cause and effect

"tiny amount of time" now you are trying to minimize the time, when if fact it is rather significant
and also there is the fact that the North & West walls moved in unison. Just exactly how does that fit in with your explanation?

who's minimizing? no matter how you want to spin it 2.25 sec is negligible.
so they move in unison ?was something else supposed to happen?

So exactly how is it that ALL of the support under the North & West walls of WTC7 simply disappears and all at the same time?

 

[daws101]

The fact still remains that in order to produce the observed result .... that is WTC7 North & West walls seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, the resistance would have needed to be removed all at the same time for the entire falling mass, Just exactly how is that accomplished without it being an engineered event?

false.
all that happened was the north face missed any impediments for that tiny amount of time.
it no proof of an engineered event..
try cause and effect

"tiny amount of time" now you are trying to minimize the time, when if fact it is rather significant
and also there is the fact that the North & West walls moved in unison. Just exactly how does that fit in with your explanation?

who's minimizing? no matter how you want to spin it 2.25 sec is negligible.
so they move in unison ?was something else supposed to happen?

So many tons of material fall in a manner that doesn't suggest, but rather confirms the fact that the falling body has no resistance under it and the fall lasts for 2.25 sec, and you are trying to make this insignificant?
The West & North walls of WTC7 are seen falling without deformation for 2.25 sec and in that time the vertical line formed by the corner of the North & West walls is seen to be

The fact still remains that in order to produce the observed result .... that is WTC7 North & West walls seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, the resistance would have needed to be removed all at the same time for the entire falling mass, Just exactly how is that accomplished without it being an engineered event?

false.
all that happened was the north face missed any impediments for that tiny amount of time.
it no proof of an engineered event..
try cause and effect

"tiny amount of time" now you are trying to minimize the time, when if fact it is rather significant
and also there is the fact that the North & West walls moved in unison. Just exactly how does that fit in with your explanation?

who's minimizing? no matter how you want to spin it 2.25 sec is negligible.
so they move in unison ?was something else supposed to happen?

So exactly how is it that ALL of the support under the North & West walls of WTC7 simply disappears and all at the same time?

all that need to happen (and did) was the supports that hold the north face be out of place just enough for it to slip by.
it all happening at the same time like you wish but have zero evidence to prove it is an optical illusion.
the 2.25 sec of "freefall" was only discovered when the tape was run at slower than normal speed at regular speed it not even noticeable.