We're not or should not be simply dismissing them on a psychological basis. Dismissing them via physics knowledge and applied critical thinking is fine, if the math adds up. WTC7 is a bit odd IIRC. It was never struck by the planes. So that is suspicious.
WTC7 was also oddly built over a power substation and on fire on multiple floors for hours before its collapse, having experienced the tremors from the North and South Towers collapsing and been struck by considerable debris. So yes, it's odd, but it was an odd building to begin with.
I don't know jack shit about metallurgy or statics, I allready I admitted that, but the numbers are so staggering that I don't need to.
I'm very much afraid that you do, in order to understand the difference between static and dynamic loads and how a building can be built to resist the former but not the latter -- particularly when weakened by fire. Videogrammetry of the event, corroborated by seismic data from Palisades, suggests a range of times of collapse that in turn allow for speeds of collapse very close to free fall in air-- although not equal, as shown by the seismic records of debris striking the ground in advance of the top of the tower hitting the ground via the collapse. There was resistance, although it was as negligible as one would expect given the mass of the tower top. It didn't break at every link simultaneously, to use your expression; instead, each floor collapsed in sequence, albeit rapidly, as would be expected as they failed under the impact of many tons of debris.
Author
Topic: Conspiracy Theories: The Reread The Civility Clause Thread (Read 43591 times)