You said y'r self...don't know how many "coloums inside the building" w'r taken out....plus would the explosion from the plane not make a
smaller hole when entering the building and get larger as it travelled thru' it (as the movies show) big fire ball on the other side...kind'a like a
bullet (small hole front ...big hole back)
What about the other side of the building pic for that....?
The core columns of the North Tower are what are not known, Sven. All known knocked out columns were taken into account here. The perimeter columns of
the North Tower, the perimeter columns of the South Tower, and the core columns of the South Tower are all pretty well accounted for. Those are most
of the columns, whether you like it or not.
Are you intelligent enough to differentiate between those different sets of columns? Or are you so limited in your thinking that you group them all
together into one general group you call "columns"? There is a key difference here you're missing.
At any rate Sven, if you're convinced that we don't know how many were knocked out, why do you keep saying
most of them were knocked out? How
would you know, if we can't know, as you claim without evidence? Aren't you contradicting yourself? You can't say "we don't know" and then
proceed to say most of them were knocked out. That makes you a
hypocrit.
But it's as I
actually said. We know the fate of the majority of those columns. Most of them still stood. There's no debating that; it's
clear in the video and photographic evidence. Your claim has been refuted three times now, Sven. You cannot claim that most of the columns were taken
out. That's called
lying.
Plus what about my previouse post what about all the TNT and the lines that you would need to hook em' up......the planes would need to avoid
the lines...plus would then not need so much TNT to bring this building down...if the plane and fire and jet fuel had "nothing" to do with
it?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? no one want's to answer that one ?
Simple answer: I don't know.
Do I claim to have all the answers here? No. Does that compromise the other evidence against the official story? No. And there is a
lot of
evidence against the official story. The fire points knock the fundamental concept of the NIST report right out of the water. Something very eerily
reminiscent of controlled demo brought the WTC 1 and 2 buildings down, but they were unquestionably unique. They had to have been set up like no other
controlled demolitions in history were. It's hard to say how they must've done it, but as I've said, the similarities are more than simply
uncanny.
Why don't
you contradict the evidence against the fires' temperatures? Saying "all fires are hot dur" is not only unscientific, but is
quite frankly ignorant. Nonetheless, it's exactly what you've said in response to this problem. Do you have anything serious to add here? It's my
unrefuted contribution to this thread, knocking out the fundamental concept of the NIST report draft and showing that it is based on pure bunk.
maybe I should go back and take my english exam 
. you mispelled it on porpoise. 
