You started the efforts to distract from essential issues because you have no evidence.
Nope. I just pointed out an error and subsequent lie and subtrifuge by you.
It all goes to show the nature of your evidence and "investigative" skills. It is you that is trying to avoid it and hand wave your way out of it.
And everyone here has presented plenty of evidence. It's not our fault if you choose to ignore it. No doubt because it proves you wrong.
So ............ you've decided that the statement which supports the concrete core has a difference with what I state about the sequence of construction and making a diversion of it.
I haven't decided anything. In post 5607 you said Jebson could not be right about his account. I showed you pictures of the constructon of the Comcast building that prove that Jebson could have seen the core if there had been a concrete core.
In post 8960, you recanted and said that Jebson was right about his account. We showed you pictures of WTC1 during construction that show no concrete core at all.
All I did was point out your errors and showed you proof of your error.
You were the one who made the posts.
I am not making a diversion of it. I making sure you don't weasle out of it or ignore it like you usually do when given evidence that shows you to be wrong.
Your selectivity exposes your disinterest in the truth. I have an image which you cannot explain of 500 feet of concrete.You refuse to use logic in addressing evidence.
Yes I have given you a logical explination and evidence. The object in the photo you keep posting could just as well be the steel core still covered in wallboard and sheetrock. If there was no exploding concrete core, the sheetrock and board could still be attached to the steel. In fact I even showed you a high resolution and clear photo of the core remenant with the sheetrock and board still attached. That is a logical explination supported by clear photographic evidence. It's not my fault if you choose to ignore it.
I have not ignored you images of steel in the core area. I have explained it logically in 2 different ways as being elevator guide rail support steel.
We know the elevators had to have guide rails.
Elevators do need guide rails for stability not support. That's why their called "guide" rails. The elevators were cable type. That means the wieght was supported by the machine floor where the cable reels and motor is, not the guide rails. I wrote an e-mail to the Otis elevator company. They were the company that built and installed the elevators. The gave me the model numbers and types of elevators they used in thier reply to me. I posted the email in this thread. (no doubt you ignored it) And I even showed you several examples of guide rails along with pictures of an elevator installation in progress. None of them were even close to being as large as the core columns in the noumerous pictures that we have been posting.
Do you see already how I've present more evidence than you have concerning the elevator guide rail/ core column issue? What have you presented? An assumption? that's all
We know that the elevators had to go as far up the tower as possible as soon soon as they could.
Proof of this? The steel crew obviously had a different method of reaching the top of the construction site. Else where did the lift equipment go if there was nothing abouve the site to support the lift equipment? See how your not thinking?
We know that steel core columns ARE VERY STRONG. That, theoretically is why they exist.
If they we steel core columns and NO elevator guide rail supports the WOULD be seen protruding from the core area of
WTC 2.
You can barely make anything out in that picture. Besides you don't see what you call the "massive box columns" protruding out of that shape either. Or are you denying that the box columns were there?
They are not. Therefore they are not steeel core columns,
Do you see how faulty your logic is? Do you see that you have not provided any evidence in support of this?[/quote] Yes I have, repeatedly. Remember that article link I posted several times that describes how the core columns were part of the design to resist wind loads? It went into detail about the different types of steel and column design that were used.
But you ignored that too didn't you.
Do you see your intellectual dishonesty?
Did you see how your logic failed you?
Since the towers did have a "tube in a tube" construction, and steel reinforced cast concrete tube inside of a steel framework in a tubular configuration fits the description of the constrcution about as good as can be, the towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core.
Unfortunately every reputable source says that was no concrete core. Your sources are questionable (remember the April fools joke and Jebson's mistaken account?)
You have no logical support for what you term "your evidence" after this post with these words.
I'll take the opinions of others if you don't mind. You are dishonest and your opinions means very little to me.
Any effort to present your images of construction showing vertical steel and label them "core columns IS misrepresentation of evidence. Is illogical and without rational, reasonable basis.
I think I've presented more than enough supported evidence as opposed to your "assumption". What have you got to support your assertion? Just that hackneyed, unsupported shpiel you pull out of thin air? You have to do WAY better than that.
Your effort to divert the discussion to an inconsistency in the observations of a pedestrian that support the concrete core to his errors of construction sequence above where he could see, IS obsufucation.
You were the one who made the conflicting and erroneous posts. I just pointed them out. You are the one who's having a hard time dealing with it.
You're the one who dodges and evades and changes the subject when you get cornered.
Don't blame others for your shortcomings
