Simple adding? Well it was simple, but in arithmetic terms and not as you're trying to use the term "simple". But is sure is more numbers and references than you've brought. Face it all you talk about is load distributions and this and that, but you really don't bring any numbers on the table.
In fact I have referred you to NISTNCSTAR1-6 a couple of times. Forgive me if I do not copy and paste entire NIST reports.
NIST did the work you complain I did not show you and you are fully aware of that fact.
I have no significant disagreement with NIST. You OTOH apparently do, to the point of managing to ignore most of the NIST reports, and only referring to those bits and pieces you choose to.
You now say that all one need do to initiate collapse is to have floor-column connections severed and indeed while that may be true this is an attempt to minimize the observations of the actual response of the buildings to the impact and fires. For instance, inward pulling of the trusses on the perimeter columns in both WTC 1 & 2. This inward pulling IS a known fact and demostrates that the interior of the structure was a a very elevated temperature thus bolstering the idea that the core columns were in fact hot and weakened.
Instead you choose to opine, without any evidence whatsoever, that there 'coulda bin' small explosives or other devices, attached to truss seats, or it seems, the trusses themselves.
If only one column had failed there would have been load distributions, but hardly a high risk of collapse (think Cessna impact).
Whhaaaa?? Yes, and more damage=more redistribution, and continuing damage=more redistribution, and even you must realize that at some point total failure ensues.
All this hand waving is a futile attempt at spinning something to convince us of something for which you don't even have the numbers to back you up.
You have absolutly nothing whatsoever, other than handwaving, to consider the use of any explosives or other devices and you accuse me and other debunkers of mere handwaving!
More so I'd add you're clearly wrong in what my attempt is. I'm not claiming that it should have fallen after the first tower because it was hit afterwards. I'm countering the claim by another member here who says that it feel sooner because it had twice as many stories on top of it.
, and I asked you several pages back, to tell us at what floors the columns changed size.
, and IIRC it has been pointed out to you that core column failure was not the initiating factor in collapse, it was exterior column failures that progressed around the structure, that initiated collapse. So increased core columns sizes are barely even part of the equation in collapse initiation.
A typical debunker closing line to try to throw something, anything, at my arguments in a futile attempt to discredit it with nothing more than empty words.
Fact is that although you have been a little more detailed than so many other conspiracists you still are adhereing to a simplistic view of the collapses.
As I pointed out before though, your move towards saying that only a small amount and number of explosive, or other devices, would be needed is a move towards no requirement for such things at all. It is that very fact which keeps you in the minority among the 9/11 conspiracy adherents.
