9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[daws101]

projecting testicles must be painful ,be thankful you'll never have that problem.

When do you graduate middle school?

Sadly the guy you demean makes you look like a sick jackass. So what does that say about your maturity level, Princess?

thanks, one thing all twoofers lack is a sense of humor.

 

[daws101]

OK, whatever you say. You don't like first-hand witness accounts, you don't like video, you don't like people who disagree with your government-sponsored story.

I'm guessing the only thing you DO like is to troll forums trying to disrupt discussions of what really happened that day.

Enjoy!

Hey Guy.

According to this "eyewitness" account, there was a waterfall AND a freight train that caused all the ruckus and NOT a tornado right?

"I was once close enough to hear the sound of a tornado," Smith said. "It sounded like a freight train and a waterfall simultaneously."

'It Sounded Like a Freight Train': The Dangers of Storm Chasing

Unfortunately the rational, logical approach not only fails to dent the foil hats of the CT Movement's nutters, it infuriates them. Perhaps a couple of 9 year olds are needed to speak to them in a language they can comprehend.

maybe the folks at Mattel can build a set for them, kinda like hot wheels?

 

[Mr. Jones]

They mention that "the failed parts gather speed until it impacts the lower parts" This is logical but where is the evidence that these 2 masses met? The impact would have been visibly noticeable, and recordable.

Wow.

They aren't "two masses". The are tow objects comprised of many different pieces and connections. The individual connections and pieces that cannot withstand a certain load will fail first. They're not solid blocks!

They are referred to as blocks, and treated as such in many attempts to explain the opposing theories. Again you seem to be asking a lot of questions that you should look to the NIST report for the answers.
I agree that that the "The individual connections and pieces that cannot withstand a certain load will fail first."

Then logically, the "creep" damage that the steel is said to have sustained would produce a slow "creep", partial damage, not go from stable to a simultaneous, global collapse front, producing the rapid collapse times.

Again I'll ask you, where does NIST get their evidence to conclude with such confidence that a global and total collapse would certainly be initiated?

 

[Mr. Jones]

How many Architects and engineers in the US? And how many are members of the truther cause? About 0.01%. Therefore Jones knows more than 99.99%.....

Isn't that amazing?

Has it ever occurred to you that not every single one of them is required to be a member, nor is a prerequisite to even have to register? This is why your use of those figures can be misleading. Not every single one of them in the US has signed off on the NIST report either.
Again you are choosing to cherry pick what you respond to, leaving out anything that has to do with the NIST lack of evidence that proves their theory..
Just the fact that there are people in the fields that have gone public and even started an organization rejecting NIST should be addressed and not ignored as being insignificant.

There is nothing to be gained by "approving" the NIST findings. They exist and they are credible enough to satisfy most physicists and engineers. Only those who disagree are motivated to speak out, some for the fame and glory, some for the money and a few because they sincerely believe the BS they spew. In all they total .01% of the professional world of their peers.
Here is one scholar - Steven Dutch, Professor of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay - who found it worth his time to refute your 9/11 silliness and that of the 9/11 "truther" movement at large. His comments reflect the rational, logical POV and Applied Science so sorely missing in your CT Movement:
Nutty 9-11 Physics

"His comments reflect the rational, logical POV and Applied Science so sorely missing in your CT..."
There is nothing of the sort in your link. Just more unprovable assumptions.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Bottom line is, that NIST was charged with the responsibility of explaining why, and how 3 massive steel buildings "collapsed" and they did not do an adequate job of it, and their guess work has been righteously and soundly criticized, and there are many instances that have been pointed out that are sorely lacking in scientific evidence to substantiate their hypothesis.
Why is it considered so wrong for others to point this out?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Tell us what force caused the tons of massive steel components to be ejected hundreds of feet away, even imbedding into other buildings?

Ejected? You've had this explained to you before. Please show us a video of a piece of steel being ejected horizontally (sideways) with force with very little amount of downward motion.

Tell us why you think the fires got hot enough when even NIST did not and could not prove it?

Hot enough for what? Melting? Failure? DO you have some numbers? Please provide numbers that show when a piece of steel will fail when applying, for example, 600 degrees to it and increasing loads.

Why did they fall right through the path of most resistance?
Why was there only "minimal resistance" according to NIST?

What exactly fell through the path of most resistance? Please explain? Do you even know what you are talking about? You need to learn about localized failure. A structure is built for all connections and components to work together to distribute loads, loads in a state of non-movement.

Do you think the engineers who built those towers calculated the stress and load of the top floors coming down onto the next floor below to see if it would stay intact? The load of that top "block" coming down would be transferred to the components and would FAIL the weakest ones. Hence the following...

How do you expect these floor truss supports around attached around the perimeter columns:

To resist the load generated from this upper "block" falling onto them:

Also, please explain what components of the tower below the upper "block" created your "path of most resistance".

The NIST testing on the mock trusses did not pass the test to support their theory.
The buildings collapsed in too rapid a sequence. NIST says the lower structures would have obviously provided resistance, and they appear to have not provided adequate resistance. I would like to see where NIST explains this in detail, perhaps you could point us to where they do? You seem to know alot about building construction, and the WTC design,, and I'm always willing to examine what ever information can be provided as I'm eager to learn different views on this subject.

 

[Gamolon]

The NIST testing on the mock trusses did not pass the test to support their theory.

Can you please link to the test you are speaking of?

The buildings collapsed in too rapid a sequence.

What is rapid to you and what are you basing this claim on? I suppose you have examples of buildings in history that were 100 stories tall, 208' x 208', with a tube in tube design, impacted by jets in the upper third, that show a much slower collapse correct?

NIST says the lower structures would have obviously provided resistance, and they appear to have not provided adequate resistance.

Quote or reference please.

I would like to see where NIST explains this in detail, perhaps you could point us to where they do? [/quote]

Again, provide me the quote or reference asked above. I would like to see exactly what you are referring to. Which NIST report does this appear in?

 

[Mr. Jones]

The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans.

Complete and utter BS. This statement of yours PROVES you have not one single clue how buildings structures are designed. Engineers design buildings to redistribute loads when the building is 100% functional.

NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. Are you saying that NIST admission and statement is "complete and utter BS?"

Please tell me how, with all your engineering knowledge, an engineer designs a structure in such a way that if a portion of said structure suffers damage, that the remaining components are designed to handle the redistribution of that load.That's impossible!

Where do I ever claim to possess "all your engineering knowledge"? that you refer to?
Nist even claims that the buildings withstood the plane impacts well. The original designers have claimed they would remain standing as well.

Are you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!

No.

WTF are you smoking?

What are you?

Let's see if you can understand how impossible it is to do what you say.

I haven't said anything, stop assuming and making up BS you can then make up a response to.

Did the engineers run calculations on the following scenarios?
Scenario 1-
79th floor, 10% east face perimeter column removal, 2% east core column removal. Hmmm. Can the remaining, undamaged structural components of floor 79 handle the load placed upon from floors 80 and above?
Scenario 2-
50th floor, 30% east face perimeter column removal, 5% east core column removal. Hmmm. Can the remaining, undamaged structural components of floor 50 handle the load placed upon from floors 51 and above?
Scenario 3-
50th, 51st, 52nd floors, 10% east face column removal, 20% west face column removal, 1% core column removal on floor 52. Can the remaining, undamaged structural components on those floors handle the load placed upon them from floors 53 and above?
Do you see the point yet? There are an infinite number of possible damage scenarios that you think engineers have design for.

I don't know if the engineers did, at the moment, but did NIST do any calculations to substantiate their theory?

Total BS. As I said, you have no clue.

Hmmm... Do you have any clues regarding how NIST was so certain the collapses would happen, in the short collapse times? That is what is in question here.

They then stood while fires were estimated to have burned. Estimates that were not indicative of steels failure point.

And you have calculations showing that the remaining steel components in those damaged areas should have remained structurally sound? Let's see the calculations showing the temperatures that the steel reached in addition to the loads placed upon them that show they shouldn't have failed.

I owe you nothing. NIST owes you an explanation with the calculations you demand to know about. It is the NIST theory you are defending....so how exactly are you doing that? By asking me for calculations? NIST made the theory, you back it up, so back it up.

Wrong. Fire weakened/damage column + a load can equal immediate failure.

Ok. Given your knowledge of this, can you explain how this happened at the WTC?

Hmmm. Didn't the upper block of one of the towers tilt first?

I have read that this is another anomaly. What do you think the significance of this means? So now, it's OK to refer to it as "the upper block"?

This would have resulted in a much slower collapse front.
This is not what we saw. Why not?

Because the "debris pile" descended upon each floor in succession and caused the floor trusses to fail. That's why you see the perimeter column get pushed outwards.

I don't believe you. Many videos show much of the debris not in a pile, but actually being blown away from the collapsing part. How can you add this ejected debris to the crushing down force being applied to the lower undamaged structure...That's cheating.

As it stands now, we are expected to just assume that that the entire undamaged structures below would provide such minimal resistance as to allow a seemingly uncontested progression of collapse? Based on what?
Where in the NIST reports is this confirmed?

Why do you continue to act like the entire bottom of the tower is a solid object? It was comprised of many components connected together. Those connections failed when stressed by the descending debris pile.

NIST/Bazant treat it this way. And you need to answer for this debris pile you keep referring to, of which much of it was ejected away. It's obvious by watching any video of the WTC.

BTW, do you have anything that can substantiate NIST's position, or are you going to insist other provide information regarding a theory you have now stepped forward to defend? Like I said, you back NIST collapse hypothesis? Show us how it and YOUR knowledge of engineering works for you, so we can all understand once and for all?

 

[Gamolon]

The NIST testing on the mock trusses did not pass the test to support their theory.

First of all, they were scaled tests. NIST raises the following question in their report. Chapter 6, page 106.
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build05/PDF/b05042.pdf

The result stated above raises the question of whether or not a fire rating based on the ASTM E 119 performance of a 17 ft span floor assembly is scalable to a larger floor system such as that found in the WTC towers were spans ranged from 35 ft to 60 ft

Did any of those floor trusses deflect at all during the tests?

 

[Mr. Jones]

The NIST testing on the mock trusses did not pass the test to support their theory.

Can you please link to the test you are speaking of?

The buildings collapsed in too rapid a sequence.

What is rapid to you and what are you basing this claim on? I suppose you have examples of buildings in history that were 100 stories tall, 208' x 208', with a tube in tube design, impacted by jets in the upper third, that show a much slower collapse correct?

NIST says the lower structures would have obviously provided resistance, and they appear to have not provided adequate resistance.

Quote or reference please.

I would like to see where NIST explains this in detail, perhaps you could point us to where they do?

Again, provide me the quote or reference asked above. I would like to see exactly what you are referring to. Which NIST report does this appear in?[/QUOTE]

Seriously your ******* incredulity is sickening. I don't have the time to do your ******* work for you, especially on a topic you seem so boastful in knowing so much about.
You've been in these discussions before so quit acting stupid and lazy. Look the shit up yourself. I would think that something you are such a staunch defender of, would be readily available for you reference. Unfucking believable, you people...

 

[Mr. Jones]

Please tell me how, with all your engineering knowledge, an engineer designs a structure in such a way that if a portion of said structure suffers damage, that the remaining components are designed to handle the redistribution of that load.

That's impossible!

Are you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!

Impossible? Um...OK...
Buildings are designed to redistribute loads; this was even more so in the WTC towers: “NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.

WTC Disaster Study

 

[Gamolon]

NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. Are you saying that NIST admission and statement is "complete and utter BS?"

No. My quote was in direct response to your assertion that the engineers and designers PLANNED or DESIGNED for the building to redistribute loads from damaged components.

The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans.

Engineers and designers cannot design for or predict load redistribution when said load redistribution is a random event because it would perpetuate on and on.

Example.

They run calculations for a random scenario. The remove 14% of the perimeter columns on the east face of floor 80 and then strengthen the rest of the structure to accommodate the load redistribution that occurs from those perimeter columns being removed. What happens if the perimeter columns were removed for 2 floors? 3 floors? What if 20% of the perimeter columns were failed/removed for 3 floors? More calculations and the strengthening of the remaining components. What if an additional two core columns were thrown into the mix? Lets add fire that weakens the components on floor 80 by 30%? Now what? Redesign the remaining components?

Do you see a pattern here?

In essence, your statement that "the buildings redistributed the loads according to the designers plans is BS.

Tell you what. To prove my point, go ask any engineer to 100% guarantee that any structure they designed will NEVER, EVER collapse do to any circumstance because they looked at every possible damage scenario possible and designed for it.

Where do I ever claim to possess "all your engineering knowledge"? that you refer to?
Nist even claims that the buildings withstood the plane impacts well. The original designers have claimed they would remain standing as well.

They did withstand the impact did they not? Did they remain standing after the planes hit them? For how long? Or are you claiming that when someone refers to an impact event lasts for a period of time?

The towers withstood the impact, but were damaged. They collapsed because of DAMAGE from the impacts and the resultant fire.

Let's say someone was driving their car. They get hit by another car. They survive the impact but are trapped inside because the doors won't open. The car catches fire and the person trapped inside dies. Did the person die from the actual impact or from the fire?

 

[Gamolon]

Impossible? Um...OK...
Buildings are designed to redistribute loads;

*sigh*

Are structures designed to redistribute loads when they are 100% intact or do engineers run calculations for every possible damage scenario to see how their structure performs regarding load redistribution?

this was even more so in the WTC towers: “NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%.

Right. So what? The loads were redistributed to the OTHER components. Those other components were weakened by fire. You even says the loads were increased up to 35% on some columns. So I ask you.

If the load was increased by 35% on some columns and those columns were weakened by 50%, are you saying they would still bear the load?

The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.

WTC Disaster Study

2000% for the PERIMETER columns right? Tell me something. Was that 2000% figure derived using undamaged perimeter columns? Was that 2000% figure in reference to wind loads pushing on the side of the UNDAMAGED perimeter column facade?

 

[Gamolon]

Seriously your ******* incredulity is sickening. I don't have the time to do your ******* work for you, especially on a topic you seem so boastful in knowing so much about.
You've been in these discussions before so quit acting stupid and lazy. Look the shit up yourself. I would think that something you are such a staunch defender of, would be readily available for you reference. Unfucking believable, you people...

Right. I'M lazy.

Last time I checked, when someone refers to another party making a statement or claim, they usually provide a reference.

Quite being a jackass and debate properly. You made a claim, I asked for a reference.

 

[Mr. Jones]

NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. Are you saying that NIST admission and statement is "complete and utter BS?"

No. My quote was in direct response to your assertion that the engineers and designers PLANNED or DESIGNED for the building to redistribute loads from damaged components.

The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans.

Engineers and designers cannot design for or predict load redistribution when said load redistribution is a random event because it would perpetuate on and on.

Example.

They run calculations for a random scenario. The remove 14% of the perimeter columns on the east face of floor 80 and then strengthen the rest of the structure to accommodate the load redistribution that occurs from those perimeter columns being removed. What happens if the perimeter columns were removed for 2 floors? 3 floors? What if 20% of the perimeter columns were failed/removed for 3 floors? More calculations and the strengthening of the remaining components. What if an additional two core columns were thrown into the mix? Lets add fire that weakens the components on floor 80 by 30%? Now what? Redesign the remaining components?

Do you see a pattern here?

In essence, your statement that "the buildings redistributed the loads according to the designers plans is BS.

Tell you what. To prove my point, go ask any engineer to 100% guarantee that any structure they designed will NEVER, EVER collapse do to any circumstance because they looked at every possible damage scenario possible and designed for it.

Where do I ever claim to possess "all your engineering knowledge"? that you refer to?
Nist even claims that the buildings withstood the plane impacts well. The original designers have claimed they would remain standing as well.

They did withstand the impact did they not? Did they remain standing after the planes hit them? For how long? Or are you claiming that when someone refers to an impact event lasts for a period of time?

The towers withstood the impact, but were damaged. They collapsed because of DAMAGE from the impacts and the resultant fire.

Let's say someone was driving their car. They get hit by another car. They survive the impact but are trapped inside because the doors won't open. The car catches fire and the person trapped inside dies. Did the person die from the actual impact or from the fire?

WTF? The towers withstood plane impacts, and the initial fireball consumed much of the fuel, within 15-20 minutes-per NIST.
I'm not disputing plane damage, or that there were fires...What the problem is that NIST does not explain how these massive buildings could possibly come down in such short times, They do not explain how these structures below the plane impacts, succumbed in under 15-20 seconds.
They don't explain the how the undamaged structure did not, halt the collapse fronts, or what removed the resistance to allow such rapid descents.
This happened to 3 buildings in one day, with NIST providing only assumptions with nothing to base them on.
That is the main problem. Now if you think you can provide an explanation that NIST failed to provide..have at it.

 

[Gamolon]

Are you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!

No.

Really? You're not?

The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans.

You plainly state above that the redistribution of the loads caused by the damage was according to the designers plans.

Do you not comprehend what you actually write?

What you fail to realize is the following point I repeatedly keep trying to get you to understand.

When an engineer designs a structure, the load redistribution is calculated on the basis that the structure undamaged and functioning properly. They base their calculations on dead and live loads in conjunction with the structural support system being undamaged.

They do NOT, repeat, NOT calculate load redistribution based on every single possible scenario in which damage may occur.

I suggest you go ask a local structural engineer about this as you are obviously basing your claims with a lack of knowledge. When someone says they "over-designed" a structure, they are referring to the entire structure being undamaged. It doesn't mean you can remove structural components until the load of the remaining components is increased by 2000%.

 

[Gamolon]

NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. Are you saying that NIST admission and statement is "complete and utter BS?"

No. My quote was in direct response to your assertion that the engineers and designers PLANNED or DESIGNED for the building to redistribute loads from damaged components.



Engineers and designers cannot design for or predict load redistribution when said load redistribution is a random event because it would perpetuate on and on.

Example.

They run calculations for a random scenario. The remove 14% of the perimeter columns on the east face of floor 80 and then strengthen the rest of the structure to accommodate the load redistribution that occurs from those perimeter columns being removed. What happens if the perimeter columns were removed for 2 floors? 3 floors? What if 20% of the perimeter columns were failed/removed for 3 floors? More calculations and the strengthening of the remaining components. What if an additional two core columns were thrown into the mix? Lets add fire that weakens the components on floor 80 by 30%? Now what? Redesign the remaining components?

Do you see a pattern here?

In essence, your statement that "the buildings redistributed the loads according to the designers plans is BS.

Tell you what. To prove my point, go ask any engineer to 100% guarantee that any structure they designed will NEVER, EVER collapse do to any circumstance because they looked at every possible damage scenario possible and designed for it.

Where do I ever claim to possess "all your engineering knowledge"? that you refer to?
Nist even claims that the buildings withstood the plane impacts well. The original designers have claimed they would remain standing as well.

They did withstand the impact did they not? Did they remain standing after the planes hit them? For how long? Or are you claiming that when someone refers to an impact event lasts for a period of time?

The towers withstood the impact, but were damaged. They collapsed because of DAMAGE from the impacts and the resultant fire.

Let's say someone was driving their car. They get hit by another car. They survive the impact but are trapped inside because the doors won't open. The car catches fire and the person trapped inside dies. Did the person die from the actual impact or from the fire?

WTF? The towers withstood plane impacts, and the initial fireball consumed much of the fuel, within 15-20 minutes-per NIST.
I'm not disputing plane damage, or that there were fires...What the problem is that NIST does not explain how these massive buildings could possibly come down in such short times, They do not explain how these structures below the plane impacts, succumbed in under 15-20 seconds.
They don't explain the how the undamaged structure did not, halt the collapse fronts, or what removed the resistance to allow such rapid descents.
This happened to 3 buildings in one day, with NIST providing only assumptions with nothing to base them on.
That is the main problem. Now if you think you can provide an explanation that NIST failed to provide..have at it.

First question to begin the explanation.

How long did it take for each of the three buildings to fully collapse from start to end? I'm asking you this, not because I'm lazy, but because people have different ideas as to the collapse time.

 

[Gamolon]

They don't explain the how the undamaged structure did not, halt the collapse fronts, or what removed the resistance to allow such rapid descents.

What was supposed to provide the resistance Mr. Jones? You just admitted previously that the connections floor truss connection would not withstand the force of the debris from above coming down onto it.

The upper "block" descended and impact the first intact floor below it. The weight of the debris/upper block was distributed to the floor truss connections on the perimeter columns and core columns and were sheared. The debris pile continued to the next floor.

This is actually proven.

Why did the perimeter columns peel away like banana peels? The floor connections were sheared and the debris pile pushed them outwards.

Take a look at this photo:

That is the remnants of the damaged core WITHOUT floors attached to it. The upper potion of the tower turned into a jumbling mass of debris and fell around the ouyside of the core columns, shearing the floor truss connections. The core was not designed to stand on it;s own and collapsed shortly after.

 

[Gamolon]

WTF? The towers withstood plane impacts, and the initial fireball consumed much of the fuel, within 15-20 minutes-per NIST.
I'm not disputing plane damage, or that there were fires...What the problem is that NIST does not explain how these massive buildings could possibly come down in such short times, They do not explain how these structures below the plane impacts, succumbed in under 15-20 seconds.

Tell you what.

Please describe the initial load redistribution of the upper portion of the tower hitting the lower part below. What components impacted what components. In what sequence did the load of the upper portion of the tower pass through the components below to redistribute the descending load.

Think it through and come back to describe your thoughts.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Seriously your ******* incredulity is sickening. I don't have the time to do your ******* work for you, especially on a topic you seem so boastful in knowing so much about.
You've been in these discussions before so quit acting stupid and lazy. Look the shit up yourself. I would think that something you are such a staunch defender of, would be readily available for you reference. Unfucking believable, you people...

Right. I'M lazy.

Last time I checked, when someone refers to another party making a statement or claim, they usually provide a reference.

Quite being a jackass and debate properly. You made a claim, I asked for a reference.

Do you believe that the NIST theory is correct? If so, based on what?
You have tried to use the pile driver theory, and you wish to include debris that is obviously being ejected away from the tower.
You assume the trusses gave way, I'm assuming because of the "intense" heat from fire.
So where is the proof that the fires did this? The NIST testing failed.
I simply would like you to point out what they have stated that causes you to believe that these massive buildings would succumb to a total collapse in the short times witnessed?

Newton’s third law, states that the forces between two contacting objects will be equal and opposite. The top damaged part would have to overcome the lower part it contacts right? Then so on and so forth on the way down correct?
If you agree with this,then you would agree that if the impact is enough to destroy the upper story of the lower section it will also destroy the lower story of the upper section.?

Also...If we are to believe that the lower floor of the upper damaged section was so overcome by tremendous heat from fire...then when this fire damaged section collides with the first floor of the undamaged lower section....which do you think would sustain the most damage and bend more easily? The undamaged section of the lower or the fire damaged section of the upper?
It does not make sense to assume that this upper section, that had to be at least glowing red hot, or close to it, to just give way, would not further deform due to it being more soft and pliable..when the 2 come into contact...

Bottom line is that these 2 forces would be expected to produce an observable halt or hesitation, and watching the antennae it does not produce a noticeable "jolt" as it has been described.
There is no halting, of the tops, as what is left of them made their way through the buildings.
Other glaring oddities is the explosive nature of the collapses, that ejected much debris away from the collapse fronts.
This further reinforces the belief that some other force was used to facilitate the collapses.

Each floor had to have provided at least some resistance, especially when you consider that the lower undamaged parts were built with thicker steel components.
To have each one of the towers come down in under 15-20 seconds does not make sense, and to have NIST state that they are absolutely positively sure that no FF would occur, regarding WTC 7, and then they had to admit to it, but without so much as an explanation?? Actually NIST spokesman does refer to the collapses at one point, as "essentially FF"...

And you find nothing unusual about these matters at all? I would hope that you share with us why not?