This is flat-out incorrect. The empirical evidence shows that, following the progressive internal collapse which began roughly 8 seconds previously, the exterior columns of the shell buckled during the initial phase of the 'global collapse'. For some inexplicable reason you omitted all of this empirical information, which of course invalidates your conclusion!
So, in fact, the initial phase, approx. 1.74 seconds, is the interval in which the columns buckled. You see, we know this because the acceleration was <g, which corresponds precisely with the buckling phase.
Your use of the word 'instantaneous' is technically incorrect, 1.74 seconds is not 'instantaneous', nor do you follow NIST's own data and observations. You would do well to remain on the path of technical competence and simply pay attention to the data!
Stage 2, as you correctly copied from NIST (you seem to trust them only here, for some odd reason....
) was the period following the buckling where there was no discernible resistance.
Then came Stage 3, where resistance was again encountered. This phase saw a return to the <g acceleration.
The correct conclusion from this data is that the columns buckled (resistance), and then there was essentially no resistance for about 2.25 seconds.
Let's break it down another way:
Out of the 3 stages of the partial view,
2 out of 3 occurred below the acceleration of gravity. The initial phase was 77% as long as the 2nd phase, the 3rd phase was 62% that length.
In total, the period of acceleration nearest g was about 42% of the portion that can be viewed in that video clip.
Conclusion: Resistance was observed for 58% of the clip, a majority of the time. Had the fall of the building been instantaneous, then the initial phase (Stage 1) would have been at g. This did not happen, therefore we can prove, using the data, that the global failure of the external columns was NOT instantaneous.
Your statement is false, based on the evidence.
Further destroying a plausible controlled demolition scenario, there were NO explosions of any kind recorded on any videos taken as WTC 7 collapsed. Thus, unless one argues that ALL the video cameras malfunctioned at that time (a rather amusing hypothesis, dontcha think?), we can safely conclude that there WERE NO EXPLOSIONS at that time.
Without explosions at that precise moment, you have no controlled demolition. It's really that simple.
Maybe you actually believe what you wrote, but nobody else will. It's a shameless strawman argument. Of COURSE explosions were heard, some of them have been recorded by video cameras, and I have videos on my channel dedicated to them.
Your argument 'if we hear an explosion on a video it can never ever be an explosion' is meaningless gibberish. What you are trying to argue, through the back door (I guess you're too shy to actually make the argument on its own merits) is that 'every explosion must be caused by a high explosive demolition charge'.
Of course you know, and we know, that this argument is a false argument, as nobody can prove exactly what caused these explosions. You don't even know where they came from, so what is the point of arguing that they were cutter charges? They might have emanated from the rubble of WTC 1 or 2, they might have come from the street. How on earth could you possibly know which is which?
You are left making a nonsense argument in protest, while completely failing to explain in any satisfactory manner how random explosions post- tower collapse are 'proof' of explosive CD of WTC 7.
I agree, people have some very strange views of the events, and I believe yours qualify as some of the strangest, most illogical and unsupported of the lot.
Instead of incompetently paraphrasing them, why don't you quote something from the report and critique it honestly?
