Reply #33: I have many times explained to you what is absurd about the

[petgoat]

zipper theory on its face--no analysis needed. It claims that the perimeter clips
were so flimsy the floors unzipped, but the core clips were so strong that the
floors tore the core down. That's absurd.

the common-sense "design concept" necessity of erecting building with built-in
demolition explosives, just in case someone decides they need to bring the building
down in a hurry?

All right, smart guy, what do YOU do with a 1300 foot tower that's been kinked by
a thousand-year hurricane and threatens to topple? Call in the Air Force? Do you
think such contingency planning was not part of putting the structure up?

I'm not saying explosives were or were not installed. I don't know. I'm confident
that if they were, their presence would have been a closely guarded secret. I don't
see how it's unreasonable to think they might have been.

even if the collapse forces had been applied uniformly and straight down, it was
more than the structure could handle.

You're arguing what NIST argues--since the building fell down, that proves it couldn't
handle the stress, therefore we know why it fell down.

The collapse forces were NOT applied uniformly. The core was built to take five to ten
times the weight of the entire structure and was subject only to the weight of the core
debris. This debris would have seen been tangled up into a ball that would have impaled
itself on the core columns like a meatball on a fork. The floors peeling off the core
would have caused minimal damage to the core because the floor pinnings were designed
only to hold up one floor while the core was designed to hold up the entire building.

But you guys want us to think the core was so flimsy it had to be braced during
construction!