"So why did you leave out stages 1 and 3? I'll tell you why. Because the specifics of stages 1 and 3 don't support your "free-fall" lies."
That is a very stupid and lame argument. We ought to be able to agree to the validity of NIST's description of all three stages.
Stages 1 and 3 don't have to show evidence of free-fall and don't need to be discussed, because if any single stage has evidence of free-fall, then the government's lie about 9/11 is exposed.
Stage 2 happens to be time-wise the longest stage and represents 105 feet (8 stories) of the collapse distance. In past postings, you've tried to convey how damaged WTC-7 was. As I recall, 30% of its perimeter columns were supposedly severed; the remaining steel was weakened to 35% of its normal strength due to extreme fires.
Although there remains questions about how and when such damaged occurred, hey, just as I agreed to NIST's description of the three collapse stages, I'll agree to this theory of the extent of the damage.
The question that remains is: how did (weakened) columns, floors, and materials over 8 stories suddenly transition from 35% strength into negligible support, which is just a fancy way of saying nothing was there to offer any resistance to the falling mass?"
Your focusing on stages 1 and 3 and ignoring the significance of stage 2 proves your dishonesty, which regrettably was already demonstrated by the repetition and vindictiveness in your postings.
I suggest you break our your first semester physics book and review what free-fall means.
For further information into this high school physics, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
"Truth, through her eternal laws, unveils error. Truth causes sin to betray itself... Even the disposition to excuse guilt or to conceal it is punished. The avoidance of justice and the denial of truth tend to perpetuate sin, invoke crime, jeopardize self-control, and mock divine mercy."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)