Thanks for the tip. Indeed, “prepending” might have been more specific and perhaps stylistically preferable: I could have rendered the words “the start of” redundant. Marginally in my defence, however, as far as I can tell, “appending” is a fairly generic term and does not seem to imply that the appendage in question is being affixed to any specific location.

It’s perhaps something of a clichéd observation, but whenever someone clears their throat by appending “I’m not a racist, but…” to the start of their sentence, you can be all but sure that a racist remark of some kind or another will follow.

It’s actually, not appending, but prepending.

I have to wonder whether you actually read my piece before commenting on it. Not once did I as much as mention Popular Mechanics, let alone simply appeal to their authority. (I should point out though, that Richard Gage and his equally fraudulent group of acolytes don’t even appear to know how NIST conclude that the towers collapsed, so it’s rather difficult to take them seriously. Further, amongst the overpriced merchandise for sale on Gage’s website, are these “evidence cards” (a snip at only $1 each). On them, you’ll find some of the same tired old falsehoods that Fisk dredged up for his article. They seem to be the conspiracy theorists’ version of Pokémon. In other words, a fantasy-based money-spinner.)

Given that this 2004 CBS poll shows that 55% of Americans believe in literal biblical creationism, the figure you cite, even if it were an accurate representation, shouldn’t cause me to think that my beliefs concerning the events of 9/11 are necessarily in error. People believe weird things – and in great numbers, too.

I am not “guessing” about what occurred on 9/11. I am making an assessment based on the available evidence. That is a demonstrably better approach than the ones taken by the vast majority of conspiracy theorists, and there’s nothing all that “arrogant” about saying so. Nevertheless, instead of argumentum ad populum and accusations of superciliousness, perhaps you should tell me what, if anything, I get wrong.

as you say at the top of the page “I Might Be Wrong” In this case you may be. We are all guessing but somehow you seem to think you are guessing better than anyone else. That’s arrogance in my book.

Avoiding a rehearsal of conspiracy theories, the discussion needs to be about understanding each others’ sense of grievances and accepting facts as they are available.

I hadn’t thought about it until you mentioned it. However, my blogmate (if that’s the right term) took the liberty and contacted them on my behalf. We’ll see if anything transpires.

Well, I’m trying to make two separate points there. Firstly, I’m comparing Fisk’s lower figure of 8.1 seconds (a roof to ground time) with the free-fall in a vacuum figure of 9.22 seconds (also a roof to ground time). Secondly, I’m pointing out that what he states are total collapse times are actually (falsified versions of) the times in which NIST say it took for the first panels to hit the ground. (However, you’re quite right that the NIST timings would refer to the shorter distances of from the crash-sites to the ground rather than from the roofs to the ground; I could indeed have been clearer!)