Creative Speculation

As soon as you've finished denying that your claim is that while the interior of the building fell down the non-structural curtain wall remained standing and fell retaining its form without distortion, you're back to asserting the claim you denied you were making.

The wet paper bag matters because the non-structural curtain wall cannot remain standing undisturbed while the perimeter framing that supports it folds up like a wet paper bag. The video doesn't need to show the E wall to show that it doesn't fold up. The fact that the NE corner of the building remains straight and plum during the collapse shows that it didn't fold up.

Why you should devote so much verbiage to something you clearly know nothing about is a complete mystery.

You do this so verbosely that nobody is even going to read your stuff to see it. You seem constitutionally unable to admit that you're wrong, and willing to risk making a complete fool of yourself to try to deny it.

The usual reason for bringing a building down symmetrically in a controlled demolition is to avoid damage to adjacent structures--which can lead to messy insurance claims and the like--and to ensure complete destruction of the building, which otherwise might have a partial collapse or topple and leave substantial portions of the building intact.

Column 79 was a hollow column in the lower stories in that it was an H-column with welded plates from flange to flange (See NCSTAR 1-9 Fig. 2-23, and also Fig L-17 in the Appendix L report). You are showing your ignorance when you deny this. You can google search this in less time than it has taken me to type these two sentences. Try using the image search.

Your lazy assumption that you know everything is incompatible with the quest for truth. Am I correct in supposing that you have been the Chief Bully on this board for years, tasked with bullshitting all discussion into pointlessness?