Creative Speculation

This isn't the only thread where you've shown that you think bullshit can be spun into gold with enough repetition, and/or you think you can wear down your opponent with that tactic, and/or you think the readers of this board are stupid.

> Your insistence on restricting access to the 95th floor is silly.

You opened this subject by implying that the demolition of the towers could easily be accomplished by accessing the core columns through the elevator shafts. The collapses began at the 82nd and 98th floors, and the elevator shaft layout was the same from the 78th floor sky lobby all the way to the top. When it became clear that you were caught red-handed peddling "truther" bullshit, because less than 1/3 of the core columns in the collapse zone could be accessed through elevator shafts, and the smaller columns at that, you suddenly tried to back away from associating your claim with idiotic demolition theories. Now, that's silly.

> The cores were cross-braced by the 6" concrete floors with steel framing underneath.

Cross-bracing is a term with a specific meaning, and it isn't whatever you want it to mean. Another term I'll bet you're unfamiliar with is moment frame, which is another way to construct a free-standing tower. Neither method was used in the WTC cores because it would have been a totally unnecessary extra expense, since the office-space floor diaphragms restrained the core laterally, which prevented buckling.

> The point is that the collapse under nothing but its own weight of the robust, cross-braced, core that was built to hold up most of the weight of 60 stories above it after the rest of the building had already fallen down is a mystery that NIST has not explained.

With the floors gone, it isn't a mystery why the core soon fell: It wasn't designed to be free-standing so the unrestrained columns buckled. You place an undue burden on NIST to explain everything that you don't understand, especially given your abject refusal to understand.