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.
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.
They are supporting structures. You can see they are centered around where there would be two other columns.maybe Dbia doesn't realize the stairs et al are supporting structures too. ? or are they not?
The wider asymmetric shape around it in the plan view is just the area around the bottom two floors, and not relevant to the collapse
Urr what??It's important because that's exactly what the building in San Paulo was not, especially with the degradation.
And I asked, why that is important at all - refering "to high-rise collapses only"....One of the most important points that AE911 makes is that they refer to high-rise collapses only, not houses, not small buildings- high-rises...
It appears that debate including your contributions are meandering down rabbit burrows of little relevance.The point I'm debating is the assertion that WTC7 was "asymmetrical, ....[ Multiple steps linking the two issues EDITED]... and people here are trying to compare these two as if this somehow reinforces NIST's assertions.