jrootham is apparently suggesting that the kinetic energy would have been transferred along a small surface area if the upper stories were tilted, which could very well result in a more rapid failure where that impact took place.
Oh, a rapid global failure produced by asymmetrical, local damage. Like magic rocks?
You are doing two things here: first, you are shifting the burden of proof. As I have already mentioned, the person who makes the claim has the burden of proof. You made the claim, and now you must provide evidence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Let's say you and I are in downtown Toronto and I told you I had a magic rock that kept away tigers. You, intelligently enough, ask for proof. Now, when asked for proof, I point out that there are no tigers around. There are no tigers in downtown Toronto. Does that mean my rock is magical? No. Therefore a lack of tigers does not make my rock magic, just like my lack of previous examples of building collapse does not make your false flag hypothesis true.
You don't seem to understand burden of proof. What you're failing to recognize is that the thread that I started is asking for your (or anyone else's) proof that the magic rock does keep away tigers, i.e., that buildings commonly implode into themselves at the rate of near free fall through the force of gravity alone. The entire purpose of this thread, and the six preceding it, is to ask for the scientific evidence, the physical principles upon which this ridiculous claim is based. No one has yet provided it. Moreover, you have no historical evidence to back this claim up, but you're asking me to find it for you. That's not my job, and furthermore, I know there is no such evidence. If you disagree, you're the one who needs to produce it, not me.
By the way, I do not think that fire did weakened the lower floors as you claim.
I have never made this claim.
Or even the upper floors for that matter. Any fire damage would have been localised to the area where the crashing jets destroyed the fire proofing around the structure.
Yes, that is the first logical thing you've said. Are you aware that the fire is cited as a major causal factor in NIST's explanation? Are you saying that you now agree with the premise of this topic--that the NIST explanation is untenable? If so, then perhaps we're making progress.