"The rules and purposes of debate are different than the rules and purposes of higher academia."

That statement reveals so much about a person's character and behaviour in threads such as these...

This comment from you reveals even more about you. For one thing, that you prefer a somewhat sneakier approach to your smear tactics (ad hominem argumentation).

We are all equal peers here in this forum. None of us is a pedagogue bestowing anything at all upon others. You might believe that you have greater status, or that you have a right to judge or bestow your approval upon others, but you aren't and you don't. You're just another one of the debaters, of equal status as all of the other debaters.


"why didn't those top portions arrive at the bottom relatively intact?"

Because the energy they possessed when they hit the ground went into reducing them to rubble (1/2 m v 2 )

Even building 7?


"And how does this explain building 7?"

If you had big heavy lumps fall on you, you might fall down too...

There's a big difference between falling down and becoming pulverized. When other 40 story buildings have collapsed by other means than controlled demolition (earthquake, for instance), have they also become pulverized?