Creative Speculation

> When I pointed out that NIST's models bore no resemblance to reality, you disputed that, saying NIST left out out the curtain walls.

No, I didn't "dispute" that the perimeter columns in the sim don't look like the videos of the shell falling; I explained why, and why it doesn't matter.

> When I pointed out that leaving the curtain walls out had nothing to do with the fact that the model bore no resemblance to reality...

... you were simply wrong. Leaving out the curtain walls has everything to do with it.

> ... you began a program of repetitive verbose obfuscation.

Perhaps it seemed like that to you, but I have to think that most people understood what I was saying, since it was pretty simple.

> The models bear no resemblance to reality. Even if your theory were true that the perimeter columns remained standing and did not fold up like a wet paper bag, my point remains that NIST's models bear no resemblance to reality.

You're basing that characterization on a completely superficial and easily explained feature and ignoring the many ways that the model bears quite a bit of "resemblance to reality," as detailed in the report. Then you want to pat yourself on the back for being a super-objective truthseeker? Sorry, but it's pretty obvious when someone simply refuses to understand something this simple that they aren't looking for explanations.