And round and round it goes....
[...] and the projectile nature of large quantities of steel,
I just isolated that one point there as an example, because it's quite bizarre to me that you keep suggesting this is evidence of anything other than gravity driven collapse. You keep bringing it up, ever since you asked if that photo was consistent with progressive collapse.
Perhaps the reason that you keep going round and round is because you keep glossing over your own points. Maybe you need to actually focus on one for a while. Why don't you explain, with calculations if possible:
A) Why a gravity driven (Verinage style) collapse would not result in "the projectile nature of large quantities of steel"
B) Why anything else (explosions, energy beams, whatever), would result in "the projectile nature of large quantities of steel"
This should be quite tangible. One should be at least be able to get ballpark figures for velocity of the steel, and then see how well that fits an A or B scenario.
I really think this is a key point for you lee. It'd be willing to get into the maths if you are.