> It was possible to access most of the main structural columns from the elevator shafts
> Anyone who can read a blueprint can see that.
Anyone who can read a blueprint can see that either you can't read a blueprint or you have incredible chutzpah. Even by your own inflated count, 1/3 of the columns is not "most," and you completely ignored my point that those weren't the ones carrying the greatest loads, so they weren't the "main structural columns." As I said (and you ignored), the simple reason is that, with only a couple of exceptions, the columns accessible from the elevator shafts were NOT the ones carrying the load of the long floor spans of the office space:
(Edit to add cite: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=8&MMN_position=19:19)
> My argument is simply to counter your untruthful statements...
Then one has to wonder why you persist when you have no such argument. Sometimes it seems that you don't think anyone will notice.
> Your inability to distinguish between a slender and swaying "spire" and a robust, cross-braced structural core capable of holding up most of the weight of the 65 stories above it is a matter of persistent blindness.
Third time: I don't give a damn what you call it, it wasn't designed as a free-standing structure, and there was hardly any cross-bracing. (Another favorite piece of "truther" bullshit is to claim that the temporary crane towers seen in some construction photos were permanent cross-bracing, so I assume that's the bullshit you're parroting.) Your ignorance of column buckling is completely irrelevant, but it seems it doesn't really matter, anyway, since you now seem to be coy about tying that core collapse to any demolition theories. It would appear that once again you were only pretending to have a point.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read