???
Sorry I don't understand what you are asking. Can you provide a link to your point?
I see all these so certain proclamations that all the damages to the complex were caused by the planes slamming through the towers and read all these certain assertions that only fires brought down the buildings, yet it is public record that building seven (47 stories) was 'pulled' and there is video of firemen hurrying away from the building cautioning the camera folks to get back because the building was about to be brought down. So I would like one of these certain experts in building demolitions to tell me how long it would take to place the proper charges in the proper locations through out #7 while it was on fire (presumably) in order to pull it under controlled demolition conditions. It is also known that the building was going to be brought down before it occurred because a BBC reporterette with the building still standing in the background said on air that it too HAD come down, before the pulling happened.
Those who are trying desperately to control the message on the tower complex keep running into the FACT that things contrary to the various stories being issued exist in the archives of citizens who have been keeping up with the evolving stories. Idiots like Rosie only add to the planned confusion. Steven Jones and his nano-thermite line accomplish the same purpose, but on a supposedly more educated level.
While watching the story unfold on 9/11/2001 I saw the upper thirty-five floors of the first tower to fall actually tip past 25 degrees from vertical, as a ridged body. Then the entire sections started downward and did not reach the ground as a rigid body but rather as dust raining down on the intersection over which it tipped. The Physics I learned in college told me that was not possible for a rigid body to defy the laws of angular momentum. But reading the various fabricated explanations for 911 is fascinating ... even as some -like Rosie's foolishness- are ridiculous.