Again photographic evidence shows you to be wrong. The 2 towers have obivously different hallway layouts as acn be easily seen by the silhouetted towers. You plans are from a fraudulent source and every piece of it must be qualified by comparison to raw evidence before it can be deemed acceptable and quality.
North tower on left. Sunrise silhouette
South tower on left. Mid day silouette
You do recall that one core was oriented 90° to the other, don't you?
If you want to use those pictures, you need to find a similar photograph taken from a position 90° to one side. You have provided a view east (into the rising sun) and west (toward the Hudson River). You need one looking north or south. This isn't rocket science; to compare photographs of the core structures, you need pictures of the wide faces of each one, and pictures of the narrow faces of each one. Without both views, your evidence is insufficient.
But it gets better. In your sunrise photograph, do you realize that the hallways in the core area are depicted as being stacked one on top of the other, rather than staggered on alternate floors (like in your drawing).
How can you possibly claim that your drawing is correct, when your own photo obviously contradicts it? Your drawing has been proven incorrect; you must retract it.
Additionally, you claimed that the report was a "fraudulent source".
What is your proof that NIST is a fraudulent organization? Without proof, your statement appears libellous; are you so desperate that you must resort to defamation? We require proof of this alleged fraud.
The image of the WTC core would show core columns silhouetted if they were there. It is too convienent for you to claim the image is not good enough. Your excuse will not fly.
On the contrary. You made the claim, therefore you must support it. You need to prove (with calculations, if necessary) why it is good enough. The burden of proof rests with you.
And furthermore, the notion that the image "would show core columns silhouetted" is foolish. Recall your own posted images that required illumination through the building (e.g. direct sunlight) to see the hallways. You tell us that in a cloud of dense grey dust and smoke, we ought to be able to see clear through to the other side?
No detail within the building is visible in that photograph, because the lighting is insufficient, and the smoke and dust obscure the building.
Well the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS is immediately after the image showing the spire which is clearly visible and your image calculations say it sould not be seen and the image of the rebar was taken a second later from the same camera at almost exacly the same position, so your excuse there is nothing but unacceptable.
I
did not say that the "spire" was supposed to be invisible. Recall that
here I asked you to edit a copy of that image, and to make a dimension mark across the 4' rebar centers. Why didn't you do so? And
here, I explained to you the meaning of resolution with regard to your images and your rebar. With calculations, explain why you believe my math to be in error.
