this was an over-engineered, highly secure building
No, actually. It had been "reworked" for various reasons. None of these rewordings appeared to have been properly reintegrated into the structure. At a quick glance, admittedly.
Such buildings are
adequately engineered. The Empire State Building could be described as "over-engineered".
well if there is absolutely nothing inhibiting its fall then it accelerates at 33' per sec^2. But anything less than that, is due to some introduced resistance. Remove all resistance other than atmosphere and the drag inherent to the shape of the object vs mass and you end up at what should be free fall. So I'm not sure why you think lateral support should initiate free fall speeds in the vertical direction. In order for that to occur, some section of the column itself would have to virtually disappear. And the believers in NIST have yet to point out how that could have possibly happened.
The above shows you don't understand
vertical column buckling collapse at all. Mick's simple video demo makes the essential point. Enter the emboldened text into a search engine (or WIKI) and see what you find.
When a vertical column buckles it immediately sheds its load, and very little energy is required to continue buckling down the column, so in essence its load falls freely.
no it can't but that doesn't mean other supports failed, it just means that the penthouse had a failure
If the penthouse had a failure it would end up as a pile of wreckage on the roof.
Your arguing that something invisible happened. Kinda a hard argument to support if you ask me.
Science and engineering were created to deal with invisible events. Your computer is full of them.
You don't know that it buckled, you have no evidence of buckling, how exactly the building failed was not recorded
Buckling is an event well-researched, recorded, and enumerated since 1745 AD. Instead of denying its existence, perhaps you should get your head round it.
Your also arguing that this mythical buckling somehow happened instantaneously within every single column of the exterior
Wind loadings were designed to be resisted by the exterior, which was specially-stiffened, not by internal cross-bracing, so when the interior disconnected the exterior stood alone. However it relied on the interior to provide stability against its own weight compressing it vertically downwards, and buckled as a plane surface will. What happens when you stand a sheet of paper on its edge?
unlikely in the extreme particularly due to asymmetrical damage or a progressive internal failure.
The interior played no part in the fascia collapse, except maybe to push it outwards as a pile of collapsing floors toppled.
you don't know there was only a shell remaining, your don't know there was no internal bracing, we do know it was not a cylindrical shell, and again you don't know there was no internal bracing
You can see the interior disappearing through the fascia windows before the fascia falls. The penthouse couldn't have fallen first without its supporting columns buckling. Technically it was a trapezoidal prismatic shell.
a 47 story building is not a slinky
That was someone else's interjection. Even so, they both possess mass and are both accelerated by the force of gravity once released.
You don't know that, you only have the photographic evidence which does not show any evidence of an internal collapse.
I think the fact that the exterior lies on top of the interior is CLEAR evidence of an internal collapse.
Any claims beyond that are pure conjecture and have no place within a factual based conversation
That is itself a conjecture based on your ignorance of vertical column buckling collapse. Are you going to maintain this?