LOLOL! I guess I deserved that one, pdq!

But I didn't deserve YOUR suggestion, Little Hawk..

so...if I don't "reverse my position", it shows that I am simply stubborn and blind to reality? It couldn't possibly mean that I interpret data and rate the analyses of it differently than you?

You complement me and my reasoning powers, then dismiss my attempts to use them.

1) " The building then implodes upon itself and collapses in a perfectly symmetrical fashion, falling at freefall speed into its own footprint." That is simply not accurate. It did not 'fall over', but it did tilt and fall at a slight angle.

2)There WAS fire up high...photos and eyewitness accounts from firemen show that debris from the towers caused extensive fire & damage so that by the time it fell, there was heavy damage throughout the building!

from this site

"...We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good."

more..."...Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north."

read the page...look at ALL the images and watch the videos....read the DIRECT contradictions of your ideas by veteran firefighters...then tell me again how **I** refuse to come to terms with obvious facts. My "excellent reasoning powers" tell me that these accounts are more compelling than those of folks who watched a couple of selected videos, then announced that "buildings can't collapse like that" ...The guys who KNOW explain that certain types of buildings MUST fall like that under the stresses described.