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

[William Seger]

72. Hmm... could be we just disagree about the meaning of the terms

... like "fact." And "most." And "main structural columns." And "wrong." And "bullshit."

> I refuted your silly claim by pointing out the fact that most of the main structural columns were accessible from the elevator shafts.

If you want to claim that this has anything to do with a controlled demolition hypothesis, then it certainly isn't "silly" to talk about which columns were accessible where this demolition allegedly occurred. By my definition, less than 1/3 of the columns is not "most" of them. Even if you insist on talking about how many were accessible between the two sky lobbies (implying that the demolition needed to take out those columns too, for some reason), then 23 of 47 is not "most." I would rather say it's "silly" to ignore that and claim that secretive demolition is plausible if "most" of the columns were only accessible below the 45th floor. And in all three sections, since "most" of the ones that were accessible were generally the lightest columns in the core, not the columns carrying half the the load of the office space floors, I can't classify them as the "main structural columns." So, your claim is not a "fact" if I use my dictionary. So you didn't "refute" anything.

Since no part of your statement is "factual," I say that you are "wrong." Since you deliberately offer a "wrong" assertion in defense of an absurd demolition hypothesis, I call that "bullshit."

Now, perhaps if you will provide your definition of these terms, we can determine where we disagree.

But wait, there's a few more:

> Your inability to distinguish between "cross bracing" (the stability conferred to columns by floors) and "X-bracing" is noted.

Amazing. I even provided a link which explained what cross-bracing is -- and if you doubted it there's plenty more where that came from -- but you deny that conventional definition and insist on your own definition. That's just "wrong." My "inability to distinguish between 'cross bracing' ... and 'X-bracing' " is because in my world they are the same thing, whereas saying that it's "the stability conferred to columns by floors" in a failed attempt to save your "wrong" assertion is "bullshit."

> The handwaving arguments of an anonymous lawyering internet poster are no substitute for a thorough scientific investigation.

I offer the "facts" that the core was not designed as a free-standing structure because it had very little "cross-bracing" and it was NOT designed as a "moment frame" -- and I claim that these are "facts" which are supported by information on the web == and I add the logic that there was no reason to incur the extra expense of such a design -- and I conclude that it is not a mystery why the core collapsed: buckling, because the floors that restrained them laterally were gone. Arguments based on sound facts and valid logic are not "handwaving arguments." In my dictionary, that would be more like the "proof by assertion" that you typically offer.

So, then there's "hypocrisy," but let's save that one for later.