Creative Speculation

Last edited Tue Nov 12, 2013, 02:48 PM - Edit history (7)

I didn't imply anything. You made a silly claim (post 30) that the demolition theory was "absurd" on the basis that the buildings were occupied. I refuted your silly claim by pointing out the fact that most of the main structural columns were accessible from the elevator shafts. I didn't peddle any bullshit. I stated a fact. You tried to minimize the significance of that fact by restricting the issue to the collapse initiation zone. It's still a fact. I didn't back away from theories I didn't assert. I stated facts.

Your attempt to rewrite the record, forcing us to rehash what's already been hashed, is an effort to give the erroneous impression that you weren't wrong. And now you're "flipping" by trying to make it me that's unable to admit when I'm wrong when it's YOU that's unable to admit error.

I've already corrected you about "easy" and you repeat it. I never said "easy" or "easily". I said it wasn't rocket science. Not complicated. Not requiring advanced mathematics. You are debating with a punching bag of your own design.

Your inability to distinguish between "cross bracing" (the stability conferred to columns by floors) and "X-bracing" is noted. I'm familiar with a moment frame. I don't know if there was a moment frame in the tower or not. Some people allege that this photo shows a moment frame:

I suspect it's a temporary brace to support temporary crane towers, but I'm not saying I know.

It is a mystery why the cores fell when they were built to hold up 60 stories above them that were no longer there to weigh on them. The core was not designed to be freestanding, you're right. An engine-block is not designed to be a coffee table, but that doesn't mean it's going to collapse under the weight of a sheet of glass and a few magazines. If you're going to claim that the core toppled because of excess slenderness, please provide some evidence of toppling, or of excess slenderness.

NIST did not explain what brought down the cores, and that was only ONE of TEN mysteries NIST dodged by cutting off its analysis at the moment of collapse initiation.

The handwaving arguments of an anonymous lawyering internet poster are no substitute for a thorough scientific investigation. Your belief that they should be only demonstrates your own incompetence in evaluating your own sources.