Your 'science' argument fails to factor in the difference between live and dead loads, and inertia.

20 floors may not be able to collapse 80, but they didn't need to. All they needed to collapse was the floor beneath them. Then those 21 floors, now with some inertia building up, smash the next one. And so on, and so on.

As for the drawing lines down the collapse, how can you determine how much debris was there with any accuracy, considering all the dust in the air?

The question I'd ask is, if it will only take a second or two more to use proper punctuation and spelling, why not use punctuation, and run that spell check?

English (not to in some way depreciate other languages,) depends a great deal on punctuation and spelling.

Consider the following three words:

There

They're

Their

Each of these words means something completely different than the other two. And the only way to tell is by punctuation.

It's all about context.

If one is posting comments on a story on CNN, then it follows that one should try to speak in complete sentences. If one is posting comments on something like Gamespot, then the comments probably need not be written to the same standard.

I'd add that, if one is trying to prove something, like how intelligent they are, for instance, then grammer, and even spelling, go a long way towards helping to make one's point.