Conspiracy v. fact 9/11

[tomk52]

71. you seem to have a "legal" slant on things...

I'm an engineer. You'll excuse me that I find it, um, "amusing" that you think that the cause of collapse of a building is properly determined in a courtroom by a jury of non-structural engineers. Or any group of amateurs.

Subjective things, like "who's your favorite artist?" "What's your favorite music?" "Paper or plastic?" Sure. Everyone gets their own vote.
But structural collapse? I don't think so.

Here's my offer. If you decline, I'll drop it.

The one & only mystery that I see remaining in any discussion of the building performance is the "mystery of the 2.25 seconds (i.e., 8 stories) of free-fall acceleration of WTC7". This is why Gage, Jones, Chandler et al harp on this tiny, irrelevant bit of trivia as "the smoking gun" of 9/11.

What if I could explain to you, in about one relatively short post, exactly why:
1) their acceleration assertion is wrong,

2) what was the real acceleration of the roof of the building,

and (most important)

3) exactly why the upper block fell at NEAR-G acceleration over that distance.
And I could do so in simple, easy-to-understand English.

Would that be of any interest to you?