The Usurper:In other words, no resistance is met with anywhere, at any point in the collapse, by any portion of the building. Only if the columns are simultaneously severed, would this seem to be possible.

I really don't think you can tell this for sure from the video.  It's not that clear.  At any rate, the building was severely weakened by the time of the collapse.  So it's not unreasonable for it to have fallen as it did. 

True perhaps, but the questions I asked seem fairly forthcoming, non-manipulative, to me.

When you call a quote a "confession," that is manipulative.

For example, it is a fact that the 9/11 Commission ignored WTC-7 in its report. Why? Do you consider that an invalid, or immaterial, question?

I don't consider that an invalid question.  I wouldn't mind knowing why they didn't report on WTC7.  Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for that.

I submit that none of my questions "are on the order of "When did you quit beating your wife." "

Fine, then they are on the order of "When did you quit kicking your cat." 


As to Silverstein's statement, how could the phrase "pull it" (a recognized term for using explosives to demolish a building by "pulling" out its supporting columns) be construed as saying, "the building is going to collapse"?


Pull the plan, pull the firefighters, who knows?  And pull it has to do with a non explosive way of falling a building.  They use cables and they fall an unstable building when there is danger of that building of falling onto other buildings. 


The case of WTC-7 really is "only a small part of a much larger picture." So the other side of what you say about this is also true, which is that, even if 9/11-Truthers are wrong about bldg. 7, this doesn't invalidate their arguments in other areas.

What I am saying is that if they were right about building 7, that would prove nothing towards all the  other events on 911.  WTC7 is likely the strongest case you have.  Clearly, the twin towers fell very much UNLIKE a explosive takedown.  The building crumbled.  I've seen the science on this and it's more than a reasonable explanation.  You can't wire buildings like that to fall without hundreds of experts.  Sorry, you can't keep that many people quiet, not even with the threat of death.

Yes, the firefighters established a perimeter. They knew it was going to fall. They were told it would fall. Yet NIST itself cannot explain why it fell, and admits as much.

I could have told you it was gonna fall just by looking at it.  It was totally unstable.  No way was that building going to remain standing.  And just because NIST can't explain why it fell doesn't mean it was blown up.  Sheesh....