The fact that you bring up WTC7 at all in respect to San Paulo is exactly my point. If you can't see that I can't help you.
Well, if you think what I actually wrote
was incorrect, I'd say the onus is on you to articulate a valid point given what I actually wrote
, but to each his own.
The point I'm debating is the assertion that WTC7 was "asymmetrical," which was an attempt to dispute my point that the San Paulo building was completely asymmetrical. If you ask anyone on the street to look at the two diagrams and answer as to which one is asymmetrical (mod:impolite assertion removed) then I'd be willing to bet my life savings the overwhelming majority of people are going to acknowledge the fact that WTC7 is by far and away a multitude more symmetrical in its design of columns. My point is you have four degrading columns in Brazil, along the edges, as opposed to nearly 100 in NY (mostly even in their distribution), and people here are trying to compare these two as if this somehow reinforces NIST's assertions.
The hypothetically assumed opinion of a hypothetical "person on the street" is of exactly zero probative value. It's just a way of dressing up the phrase "my imagination tells me..." And if the imaginary person at issue behaved as you imagine, then such imaginary person would simply be wrong. So let's just keep imaginary people out of the conversation. It is beyond dispute that WTC7 was asymmetrical. I don't know why this is a point you are even trying to argue.
I think once you put the strawmen aside and read closely what has written in this thread by me and others, you will see that there are some aspects of both collapses where comparisons yield interesting implications for AE911Truth's arguments. For example, as I previously wrote, the fact that both collapses resulted in ejections that AE911Truth previously claimed were demolition "squibs" in the case of the WTC7. It is not necessary to start from the premise that the collapse events or buildings were exactly the same
in order to think and write about such implications.