I still have no idea what you're trying to say about "50 stories of debris." It would help if you would clearly state what you are taking as facts or premises and what inferences you are drawing.
> If they are going to show us how it happened, isn't a good idea to see the real end result? Their "pancake theory" doesn't make sense. That is what the "debunkers" always go to. The floors fell on top of one another.
I have no idea what you are referring to as "they are going to show us," but again, the "pancake theory" means a specific early theory about what initiated the tower collapses, which was not substantiated by analysis of the design and the evidence, so I don't know why you keep mentioning it. After the collapse started, the floors certainly did "pancake" down, as proved by all the failed floor connections found in the debris.
> That in itself would take a while to happen, and there would be resistance.
You don't know what you are talking about. Of course there was resistance, but the impulse forces delivered by the falling debris was so large that the floor connections could only resist for a tiny fraction of a second. When they broke free from their supports, the debris was in free-fall to the next floor.
> Those buildings fell 10 stories a second, you know free fall speed. Like WTC 7.
"Free fall" is an acceleration, not a speed. The floors of the towers were destroyed at an accelerating rate, but the rate was only about 64% of free fall. What rate should we expect? On the one hand, we have precise mathematical models performed by people who know how to calculate the resistance of the structure and the accumulating momentum, which agree well with the rate that was seen in the towers. On the other hand, we have the incredulity of people who don't know what they are talking about.
As for your stale propaganda video from 2006, I'm not interested in wasting time on it, but others already have.
= new reply since forum marked as read