Ok now let me start from the top. As the top portion of the building gave away, there were far too great volume of dust already spewing forth out of the impact hole of the building.
Says who? Can you site any other circumstance where an airplane was slammed into a building and the dust that poured forth was measured? Who's to say how much is too much? Certainly not you, I'm wiling to bet.
While the top part was falling, it was already breaking into pieces, therefore the weight wasn't heavy enough for the top portion to act as a hammer.
This has been handled. Now will you admit it's a mistaken conjecture, or will you ignore the rebuttal and come up with something else?
Each and every floors were pulverizing into dust and small bits, the only logical explanation for the was because there was a great deal of energtic supersonic waves in which high explosives have the ability to produce.
Careful with your hyperbole. The <b>only</b> logical explanation? Don't you suppose that 20 stories of building coming down could also create quite an impression wave of force?
The reason you see puff of smokes ejecting at accelerating speed, the reason there were witnesses who heard something that was going "pop pop pop", was because they were most likely explosive charges, which has the ability to reach the temperature as high as 5000 degree F, exploding, breaking the central steel core into pieces to "weaken the steel columns structure of the building".
As far as the puffs of smoke are concerned, fill a ziplock bag with flour, poke a small hole near the bottom, and drop it on the floor. Use your observational skills to determine if explosives were necessary to propel the flour out the hole.
I can not verify this, but perhaps a firefighter out there can. Don't windows explode outward in a fire, often with a loud popping noise? Couldn't this account for the multiple "explosions" heard? Considering the number of windows in the WTC, isn't this very likely, more so than actual explosions?
And I don't recall anyone at any time claiming that a) the temperature reached 5000C or that b) explosives can cause those temperatures.
The buildings came down in a free fall manner in only 10-13 seconds, with every 10 floors falling every second.
"In a free-fall manner"? You mean, they fell, like, downward?
If the pancaking of the floors was true, then each floor that pancaked on the top of the floor below would've slowed down during the process of the collapsing.
I thought it had been shown, earlier in this thread, that in true free-fall the top floor would have hit the ground in a little over 9 seconds. So unless you disagree with Sir Isaac Newton, the pancaking did indeed slow the collapse.
After the complete collapse, the billowing of the dust was too great and moving at high speed, covering most part of manhattan. The explanation of this has to be because of the high percentage of the concrete, abestos, office supplies, etc, etc in the building were transformed into nothing but dust.
How does this advance a conspiracy theory?
The north tower collapsed for the same reason as I explained above. The twoers were built to withstand high winds, earthquakes because it was "ridiculously over engineered."
This is called "adequately engineered". "Ridiculously engineered" would be if the buildings were able to withstand a direct hit from a nuclear bomb.