Originally Posted by
DGM
Add to this they choose to start "questioning" the collapse half way through while ignoring what has already happened. It's like I cut the legs off the table and they only look with wonder after I drop it. How could it fall so fast.....................
Not quite. They're specific about claiming that fire/debris damage was too small and sporadic to be fatal. That's how they "skip" half of the past tense; they don't think it's relevant. They assess severity by external appearance, and don't have the mentality to evaluate the circumstances from a design/engineering philosophy; that's all.
Speaking of cause/effect - there's been a distinct lack of comprehending the relationship for many years. Case in point, we're still dealing with the squibs argument; apparently it's insane to think that air could be forced out by pressure imposed by the falling mass inside the building yet it's still perfectly sane to conclude that explosive devices attached to the structural elements detonating were ejecting material but producing no characteristic sounds that every other controlled demolition in history (using explosives) exhibits, and apparently being "damage-less" because there is absolutely no visual record showing connection failures consistent with explosive impulse to the scale that "CD" advocates claim were implemented. There's no video or sound record corresponding with the collapse times to associate the ejecta with either.
Enough commentary of course.