Creative Speculation

> We were talking about the fact that your "credible explanation" bears no resemblance to reality.

You don't need to tell us that YOU don't accept the sim as a credible explanation, but that's completely irrelevant to your "no resemblance to reality" claim. Do you really think nobody will notice that, when presented with a LIST of "resemblance(s) to reality," all of which are clearly relevant to the initiation and progression of collapse, you just ignored them all and once again harped on an irrelevant detail that is easily explained? I don't believe I've ever seen anyone who was so desperate to NOT understand something so simple, but as I said, keep flailing away on that dead horse and I'll keep pointing out your allergy to logical reasoning.

> Your claim that the non-structural curtain walls were "rigid", when you yourself described them in post 16 as "hanging" from the perimeter framing, is ludicrous. The curtain walls could not possibly be rigid when the perimeter columns that held them up were folding like a wet paper bag.

Uh... the fact that they were attached to the perimeter framing and were "hanging" in the sense that the perimeter framing was carrying their weight says nothing whatsoever about the RIGIDITY of the curtain wall/perimeter framing assembly. In fact, they needed to be rigid enough to carry considerable wind loading and in-plane shear forces. The corners would have been particularly rigid because of perpendicular in-plane shear resistances, whereas in the sim, we can see the corners start to displace first from the box shape, precisely because of a lack of rigidity. But once again, that's completely irrelevant to the NIST hypothesis for the initiation and progression of the collapse, so flogging that poor deceased equine does nothing to address, much less refute, that hypothesis. And once again, it painfully obvious that your intent is simply to use that as a lame excuse for denying that hypothesis without actually having a rational refutation.