I don't find any images of raw evidence of steel core columns there. You need images of the columns in the core area at some elevation above the ground to qualify as showing "core columns".
You're taking my evidence very specifically. I then showed you construction photos of steel supports sticking out of the top, and you claim they are MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS. Care to explain how those are NOT steel support columns?
No raw evidence of columns inside the core at the above site.
This image does not look into the core and only shows an interior box column on the left.
Again, this is a very meaningless distinction. How do I know that those are not support columns? You have shown me no pictures of the towers under construction showing a concrete core, and so I must conclude that the columns are more likely to be support columns than some kind of reinforcement for a core you have shown no pictures of.
No raw evidence of steel core columns at the above site. You did however come up with yet one more floor plan for the core layout. That makes FOUR plans now, all different.
Which is odd, because the only one which seems truly different is the BBC one which is incorrect. The others show different aspects of the same design.
If you are looking for an aerial of the top of the tower showing interior box columns mine is the best.
"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" You can even see the small vertical steel of the ELEVATOR GUIDE RAIL SUPPORTS in the core area. No core columns seen.
Yes, MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS. See my above question regarding these.
Where is the concrete?
Now you are being dumb again. I've already said those are not accurate and useless except for site information such as which way the towers are aligned.
Personal attacks will not hurt me or convince me, sorry.
But you present them as some kind of evidence of something. If they are only layout plans, then they're totally useless to anyone here. Why even post them?
I've already shown the blueprints have never been made available to anyone,
This will make your case
considerably harder to prove.
Proving that there is something being hidden about the structure. Or were you sleeping through your law enforcement investigational classes?
Well, I didn't take "law enforcement investigational classes", I took classes studying the science of investigation as applied generally, but I'll let you off the hook for such a minor distinction.
No, as a matter of fact. However, one thing we learned, along with every law class I had to take, was that absence of evidence is not evidence. It can direct you to look in a particular place or make a jury hesitate, but it can never prove anything. The concept of absence of evidence as proof may be popular among the CT circles, but it will not hold water here.
Yes, and I've proven my point with one image, although I have more.
No, you haven't.
If you do not think it is concrete ,then tell me what you think it is based on its appearance and your experience with construction materials. If you do not do this immediately,then you WILL be truly evasive.
I agree, I would be being evasive.
I do not know specifically what it is, and you do not either. You have shown one still image from the collapse. You are trying to evaluate a very dynamic situation from a static perspective, which is a very bad idea.
It
could be many things. Given the situation, I would say it is most likely the bulk of the building as it was coming down, being a collection of many different materials.
If it were the concrete core and core was demolished completely by C4, then why would we see pieces of an intact core.
You could also say, "I do not have any experience in evaluating building materials by their appearances." This would mean that you cannot use my raw evidence.
No, it would mean my opinion is less valuable in this area than the more knowledgable forum members that have already addressed this issue. I'll defer to their expertise in this area.
However, to a layman it
does not look like a concrete core. So you'll have to provide better evidence that, to a layman, looks good. I hope you're not suggesting I simply take your word for it, because I don't give that liberty to anyone.
I talk about preserving the principles of the US Constitution, our rights and freedoms. Al Qaeda will not do that and I've noticed you have not either.
Anyone can talk about anything, that doesn't prove their true motives.
I do not need to spout patriotic rhetoric in order to prove my dedication to the Constitution. That is a tactic of last resort for the intellectually cornered.
So, .... you might not be abel to evaluate building materials by their appearances, but at least you could avoid being perceived as some kind of agent subversive to to the sacred principles of our great nation.
You finally answered my earlier question. Apparently, it
is impossible to disagree with you without being insulted.
Or, ....... you could say you are Canadian or Australian or from Germany and have no reason whatsoever to give a crap. I which case you are probably an agent of some sort.
No, I'm very happy to be a part of my country, despite its flaws. But national origin has nothing to do with this.
I would kindly request that you converse in a more civil tone. I know that you are frustrated that no one here takes your argument seriously, and have long ago degraded into using
ad hominem as a debate method, but it's very tiresome.
