> "where the collapses started" was irrelevant. I said that at the 95th floor the loss of the 16 core columns accessible from elevator shafts could arguably cause the core to collapse.
Which is abject bullshit. "Truthers" love to point out that the core columns were designed to support about 3 times the gravity load that was on them, so randomly taking out 1/3 of the columns should not be expected to cause the core to collapse since there would still be a 100% safety factor. But the non-random situation is actually even worse than that for your argument, because the columns accessible by shafts (even though you disingenuously want to include mechanical shafts now plus ones that were only in "close proximity"
were mostly interior to the core, not the much heavier columns that carried half the load of the long floor spans. Taking out a few columns around the elevator shafts would not cause those columns to collapse. Moreover, taking out columns around the elevator shafts would certainly not cause the exterior columns along one wall to start buckling inward about 20 minutes before the collapse, and to completely buckle inward with the onset of the collapse, allowing the tower tops to tilt. Seems to me that elsewhere you were bragging about how much evidence gathering you do before jumping to conclusions...?
> The 44th floor floor plan is hardly irrelevant to the collapse of the 44th floor.
Your apparent ignorance of structural mechanics and dynamics is hardly relevant. Even if the initiation had been by magical silent explosives or mysteriously synchronized thermite melting, there would be no need to take out any columns on the 44th floor. And don't bother denying your ignorance, since you said this:
> The collapse of the lower core under no more stress than its own weight--after it had been relieved of its job of holding up the upper 65 floors and after the collapse of the outer floors had concluded--is one of ten essential mysteries that NIST neglected to address in its 10,000 page report.
That would be because it ISN'T any mystery to structural mechanics experts who understand that the core was not designed as a free-standing structure == the floors trusses restrained the core columns laterally to prevent buckling -- and that the resistance to column buckling varies with the SQUARE of the unrestrained length. And anyway, speaking of mysteries, you're just fabricating another "just so story" to imply that there must have been some mysterious reason that the alleged demolition team needed to bring down that lower part of core after the rest of the building was destroyed.
> I do not make indefensible claims.
Well, it's true you don't seem to understand that they are indefensible, I'll give you that. 
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read