This message was self-deleted by its author

[William Seger]

27. Here we go round the Mulberry bush

> As soon as you've finished denying that your claim is that while the interior of the building fell down the non-structural curtain wall remained standing and fell retaining its form without distortion, you're back to asserting the claim you denied you were making.

Your reading comprehension difficulties seem to be making this harder than it needs to be. For at least the third time, I believe that the interior framing most likely fell away from the exterior framing, which included not just the curtain wall panels but also the exterior columns and beams -- i.e. structural elements -- that they were attached to. I further believe that the curtain wall panels had enough rigidity to hold the box shape of that assemblage, so there is absolutely no logical reason to expect the attached columns and beams to look like the simulation. Do you really not understand what I'm saying, or do you simply find it too difficult to refute, so you attack a strawman misrepresentation instead? And is all of that just a dodge to avoid the issues of the collapse initiation and propagation?

> Why you should devote so much verbiage to something you clearly know nothing about is a complete mystery.

... sez the guy who didn't even realize that the curtain wall wasn't part of the sim, and is now handwaving like a madman to dismiss the significance.

> The usual reason for bringing a building down symmetrically in a controlled demolition is to avoid damage to adjacent structures--which can lead to messy insurance claims and the like--and to ensure complete destruction of the building, which otherwise might have a partial collapse or topple and leave substantial portions of the building intact.

And once again, we can conclude that that must have been what "they" wanted to do because that's what they did, huh? Sorry, but your ad hoc "just so story" is still missing some details, such as why there WAS damage to adjacent structures, and why you believe the only way to bring the building down symmetrically is with sudden onset, and why "sudden onset" really only applies to the shell, since the collapse of the penthouse began six seconds before that, unsymmetrically on one end of the building.

> Column 79 was a hollow column in the lower stories in that it was an H-column with welded plates from flange to flange (See NCSTAR 1-9 Fig. 2-23, and also Fig L-17 in the Appendix L report).

Fair enough, I'll accept that as evidence that there were some hollow columns, somewhere, but I can't find any details about which columns and where. But anyway, I suppose that does mean that we will now need to discuss your absurd hypothesis that small charges were somehow placed into those columns to cause just enough damage to thermite-heated steel that they buckled. Please provide an example of that so we can judge the plausibility.

> Your lazy assumption that you know everything is incompatible with the quest for truth.

Bullshit, I make no such assumption, and I give you every opportunity to teach me something. So far, that amounts to the fact that at least some of the columns had additional plates attached. If you think I'm bullshitting about anything, I give you every opportunity to prove it, and if I think you're bullshitting, I'm gonna call bullshit. As I've said many times here, bullshit never did anyone any good. And as long as you would now like to turn to personalities, I think this is a good opportunity to point out another characteristic you share with the conspiracy theorists, despite your denials: After claiming to be oh-so much more driven to find the truth about the oh-so important events, conspiracy theorists become apoplectic about any attempts to weed out the bullshit. If the shoe fits...