9/11 Free Fall 7/18/13: Dr. deHaven-Smith and "conspiracy theory"

[William Seger]

53. Again, you want to make your reading comprehension issues my problem

... or are you just using it as a rhetorical device to again pretend to have a valid point?

> You claimed in post 32 that the FACT that the main structural columns were accessible from the elevator hoistways is "truther bullshit".

Bullshit. I was responding to your explicit claim that it would have been easy to bring down the towers because of the "easy access" to core columns, which is bullshit; I was not denying that there was access to some columns. Specifically, in post #31 you said:

> It ain't rocket science to bring down a building. The main structural columns of the towers were accessible from the towers' 15 miles of elevator shafts.

When I asked you to tell me how many columns were "accessible," I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that you are so dense that you actually thought I was denying that some columns were accessible, especially since in the same post I put a floor plan that showed that some were! Give me a break. I'm sorry, but I have to believe that you fully understood what I was getting at because you immediately tried to not only exaggerate the number but also threw in irrelevant counts from floors below the collapse initiation, simply because they were more down there.

However, if you honestly misunderstood my point , I trust that now we've cleared that up and you will address it with something resembling a cogent refutation, no?

(I'm gonna guess, "no.&quot

> It's not a "spire" that was brought down. Photos and videos show that the entire lower core was left standing after the rest of the building had collapsed completely, and then the entire lower core fell under its own weight.

Jeez, here we go again with another pointless, argumentative dodge where you pretend to have a point. The "spires" are what those standing core columns are frequently called on "truther" sites, and I can't think of anything less relevant than what you want to call them.

> If you have some evidence that the lower core columns buckled, please provide it. NIST doesn't say that. Your belief that we should accept the hand-waving arguments of an anonymous internet poster in lieu of a thorough, honest, scientific investigation betrays you.

LOL, the funny thing about that comment is that you have already demonstrated that you won't believe anything coming out of NIST, even though their investigation was carried out by many dozens of non-anonymous recognized experts, including dozens from academia and private industry, whom "truthers" blithely accuse of being accessories to murder after the fact because what they found doesn't suit their absurd controlled demolition theories. You can't come up with a reason why the "demolition team" needed to go to all the trouble and risk of rigging those "easily accessible" columns in the lower cores, because it just doesn't make a lick of sense. But no, I wouldn't waste a minute trying to convince a "truther" of anything. The best I can hope for is to give a clue to any truly objective lurkers here that "truthers" peddle bullshit -- check it out for yourself. But as I said elsewhere, all I'm getting out of this is the humor value.