Where the word "perpendicular" is undefined and you do not say which columns you refer to. However you reference my comment about Perimeter Columns where I said
So I am referring to perimeter columns therefore you are also.
So please say which fact I asserted do you allege is wrong. Here are the separate facts I called on:
What are you attempting to support by this reference? I cannot respond if you don't make explicit what you are trying to say.
already explained in my post. My emphasis was that the falling core part of Top Block takes out the horizontal beams because the question you asked was about horizontal beams. I responded to your question. But the same principles apply to cross bracing. The argument is simple. The main strength against vertical loads was in the columns. The columns were bypassed. Everything else other than columns was too weak to withstand the falling weight for the reasons already given in the previous post. What part of that chain of reasoning do you disagree with? Why?
Read what I said. It is nothing to do with erratic. And each floor level would be stripped out as the debris + Top Block worked its way down. Respond to what I said - stop trying to change to a different scenario UNLESS you post your own complete explanation. It will need to be better than mine.
What is the relevance of the image? What are you trying to say by posting it?
And??? Where did I say otherwise? In fact where did I even get to discussing it?
I don't have to concede anything. Especially since the comment is irrelevant. Why do you make it? What part of my explanation are you addressing.
Thasnk you. I've had a lot of practice - mostly 2007-8-9 explang to genuine truthers. Haven't done much in recent years since all the issues were already explained. Clayton's requests gave me the opportunity to refresh my style.
Not at this stage. I am following a very specific and focussed path to respond to specific questions put by Clayton. Its hard enough trying to keep Clayton on focus without chasing everyone else's random meandering thoughts.
@Clayton Moore.
Clayton I posted a comprehensive explanation for your assistance and because I enjoyed writing it. You can either take advantage of it or continue evasive games. I will challenge your response briefly:
You repeat this question Where the word "perpendicular" is undefined and you do not say which columns you refer to. However you reference my comment about Perimeter Columns where I said So I am referring to perimeter columns therefore you are also.
You say: So please say which fact I asserted do you allege is wrong. Here are the separate facts I called on:
a) The perimeter columns were left standing
b) with bracing removed.
c) They would fall over
d) for one of several reasons
e)-- impacts from the descending ROOSD process,
f) instability or vibration following ROOSD descent OR
g) simply Euler buckling due to unsupported column of hight/slenderness far in excess of critical length.
h) The key causal issue is "Removal of Bracing"
i) the rest follows automatically.
So which of those nine separate assertions of fact do you claim is wrong and explain why you assert that it is wrong.
Then, if you want to switch from addressing my claim to making one of your own, feel free to make your own claim. My post gives you an example of the level of precision and detail that is required. It is not a trivial task - are you up to it - I've shown that I can do it - can you? And I will not engage in trading "JAQing off" over trivia.
As for the remainder of your post here are some brief comments:
What are you attempting to support by this reference? I cannot respond if you don't make explicit what you are trying to say.
already explained in my post. My emphasis was that the falling core part of Top Block takes out the horizontal beams because the question you asked was about horizontal beams. I responded to your question. But the same principles apply to cross bracing. The argument is simple. The main strength against vertical loads was in the columns. The columns were bypassed. Everything else other than columns was too weak to withstand the falling weight for the reasons already given in the previous post. What part of that chain of reasoning do you disagree with? Why?
Read what I said. It is nothing to do with erratic. And each floor level would be stripped out as the debris + Top Block worked its way down. Respond to what I said - stop trying to change to a different scenario UNLESS you post your own complete explanation. It will need to be better than mine.
What is the relevance of the image? What are you trying to say by posting it?
And??? Where did I say otherwise? In fact where did I even get to discussing it?
I don't have to concede anything. Especially since the comment is irrelevant. Why do you make it? What part of my explanation are you addressing.
You have my sympathy Clayton. You seem to be genuinely incapable of either presenting your own reasoned argument OR responding to mine when I spoon feed you.
That is correct but don't miss the point I was making with extreme care to be rigorous. My whole thrust was to demonstrate a reasoned process of argument starting from zero base and progressing in short logical steps. If, like Clayton, you want to start with something that should be further down the path - feel free. But your "start at the middle" comment has to be supported with at least as good an argument as my "start at the beginning" one. Clayton telling me that he starts with his conclusion is no news. I knew that already. If he doesn't want to either accept or rebut my explanation he is free to present his own. BUT no way will I respond to unsupported JAQing commentary which puts on me the burden of disproving the claim which he hasn't even started to make out. Yes I am aware that nearly everyone around here gets it arse about on a regular basis.
Nope. You may be falling for Clayton's quote mining. Which I think was inadvertent on his part BTW
What I say is what I am saying. Nothing more nothing less. If I talk about the start of something I am talking about the start. Not the middle. Not the end. Not next weeks version of the same event. 
yes,yes, yes.......the inner core was dependent on the floor slabs and perimeter columns for lateral stability.
True but he quoted a bit out of my deliberately very tightly focussed bit of reasoning. And I was pressing him to either follow reasoning I put to him OR present his own. And, for those who question my wisdom, I was and still am well aware of the low probability of success.
It is a clear example of the divergent thinking syndrome I have mentioned a few times. ( That is the PC version. Put bluntly it means 'cannot think") The poor reading comprehension is a subordinate aspect. It is obvious he hasn't comprehended what I wrote. I could have put it another layer down towards kindergarten but I was conscious of not offending by going too low. Read the bit about "shortcut" which skirts around the questions of "are you intelligent enough to understand this or do you want it even further down towards baby food?"
No problem.and frankly I was skimming the thread when I had a chance to be online. Tuesday I will have time to pay closer attention.
So ,,,, never mind me,,,, continue
