Reply #183: I don't believe it is "hoakie."

[Make7]

What I'm trying to grasp is how anyone can claim that the proof that the towers were blown up by conventional (or unconventional) means is that they fell too fast, but never give a reasonable estimation of the time it would take if the collapse was not caused by explosives or some other sinister means.

Too fast compared to what? That's what I want to know.

The too-fast theory is very prevalent, yet usually it is not shown what source was used for their claimed collapse times or how that is faster than it would have been without explosives.

Other aspects of the collapse can be discussed as to how they fit in with various theories, but I continually see the "too-fast" aspect of the collapses used as "proof" that there were explosives in the towers. What I haven't seen is someone actually prove it.

-Make7