It is quite a leap to assume any of your post either addresses the part of mine that you quoted or indeed any other part of my post.
The kink shows the east and west portions leaning towards that kink well before an acceleration that is at free fall yet this fact also demonstrates that the building is already doomed to complete failure before your fantastical eight storey column removal.
The collapse of WTC7 displayed an implosion profile which well matched the industry standard.
No it matches what one would expect with loss of core capacity following loss of a major column in a structure with long span open floor design erected over an existing, much lower, structure. Did the north face collapse to the south? Yes it did, it collapsed towards the failed core, Did the south part fail to the south? Yes, it collapsed towards the significantly damaged south perimeter
Of course a commercially planned CD would pre-rig the building (remove windows etc.) to minimize collateral damage.
An implosion collapse as observed with WTC7 required the near instantaneous removal of the lower core and perimeter columns for at least 8 floors.
You keep saying that but you seem to be hoping that doing so will make it so.
It won't. In fact the topic is whether or not FFA equals CD. However its shown that your fantastical eight storey column removal would result in an eight storey acceleration profile completely dissimilar to that which describes the fall of wtc7.
You choose to ignore that fact.
In addition, you choose to ignore the fact that the entire building is doomed as soon as we see the eastern and western portions tilting towards the kink while the core is obviously severely damaged or destroyed.
It is far from obvious that a failure of column 79 is going to propagate a core destroying debris shower.
Whatever happened inside WTC7 from the time of the east penthouse collapse to it dropping out of view several seconds later, the north face revealed very little. This is quite amazing considering 47 floors all securely attached to core columns and perimeter columns.
If the falling debris, air handling/air conditioning units and other dense material, is punching though floors for 40 floors until it reaches the core at the level of those cantilever trusses it would indeed show little effect on the windows.
If otoh there were column destroying explosives severing multiple columns, dozens of them, one would expect that the combined pressure effects would have shattered windows over much of the north face. How is it you can be amazed that falling debris a hundred feet from a windowed face does not twist windows to breaking point but be so cavalier ad to expect that dozens of simultaneous explosions won't cause vibrations that shatter windows?
The kink is forming as global collapse begins. There is noticeable window breakage that looks related to column 79.
Yes, the kink, occurring well before the entire facade reaches FFA, demonstrates that at this point the building is doomed. Yes despite a supposed explosion massive enough to sever col 79 only windows long the greatest line of deformation have broken.Despite dozens of following explosions few other windows break as the entire north face begins moving.
Somehow the internal crushing forces were not visibly pulling the perimeter columns in, nor dramatically fracturing the hundreds of window frames.
I've seen photos of buildings that have toppled due to earthquakes yet have windows still intact. No explosives required. In this case the windows were part of a frame that was coming down due to loss at the level of the cantilever trusses. There's your eighth storey failure.
Why do all 4 sides drop in unison?
Did they? Iirc, femr2 showed a few delays in that regard. Certainly the parts nearer the kink began moving before the perimeters, otherwise there'd have been no kink. However if the cause of failure which had the east,west and north perimeters falling is directly related to the failure of col 79, then we cannot expect east and west to react highly differently. Nor can we expect that the south side, already significantly damaged, to react grossly different.
You are not making a case foe CD, MM.
You want me to accept that the WTC7 external shell went from standing to a balanced drop for over 8 storeys, because 8 storeys of core and perimeter columns failed equally and in unison?
You misrepresent it as in unison. Obviously there was a separate initial column failure, col 79, followed quickly but sequentially by other, core column, failures. There is also a sequence to the moving of the north face, first the movement towards the kink, visible even up to the roofline, a distortion that broke few windows. Only after this does the north face sections begin moving downward, and quite evidently tilting southwards(that is where the west side, north portion ended up). Moving down won't break windows and with the entire plane falling south there's little to cause window breakage. Certainly no more than the initial kink would have caused.
By human engineering. Yes.
By roaming office furnishing's fires. No.
MM
Neither you or anyone else, has come up with a human engineered controlled demolition scenario that satisfies all the criteria that you say shows it was not the result of fire induced structural failure. When will we expect a CD scenario detailing how col 79 was severed first, then the progressive collapse of rooftop structures was effected, then further column failures were made to occur such as to cause the north face to experience an acceleration profile as observed for wtc7?
You seem to think that making unsubstantiated declarative statements is enough to first disprove a fire initiated progressive collapse, and second proves a controlled demolition.
