Reply #62: Still no substantive criticism of the construct, only labelling.

[petgoat]

So for the fifth time, what is wrong with the construct?

A hypothetical "reasonable and curious person" working at Ground Zero

1) looks at all those tower perimeter columns that have been flung into Church Street,
Vesey Street, the Bankers Trust building, WFC3, WTC6, and WTC5

2) hypothesizes that flung perimeter columns damaged WTC7 and

3) watches as the WTC7 pile is taken apart to look for the "smoking gun" proof of
his or her hypothesis.

Now what is faulty about that premise?

What is wrong with then concluding, since no photos of perimeter columns in the WTC7
pile exist and no one has come forward to say they saw them, that it is more likely
than not that no identifiable tower wreckage existed in the WTC7 pile?

I am not skating from this construct at all. I think it's important.