Reply #340: It appears you are not quite following my reasoning either [View All]

"If I believed the cores were not made from 47 steel columns, would I be posting information which shows the layout of the 47 columns?"
You might well, it wouldn't surprise me that much.
"Since I had just posted a floor plan that shows that layout, I think it would be safe to assume that I think the cores were made out of 47 steel columns."
I wouldn't dream of making such an assumption.
"So when I replied to Christophera's question, I was pointing out that I had, in effect, just posted what material I thought was used to build the core."
But the inspection diagram is meaningless vis-a-vis the steel core, as the steel core was not what was inspected in this inspection.

"Did I say, or even imply, that I know with absolute certainty, exclusively based on the inspection drawing, that the cores were made with 47 steel columns?"
You implied the inspection drawing was one of the reasons you believe that the cores were made with 47 steel columns, otherwise why would you bring it up in the argument?

"Let's see.... I post an inspection drawing with the column layout and numbering for 47 steel core columns....
I think I'm gonna say that it's not made from concrete, it's made from 47 steel columns."
A reasonable interpretation of the above quote is that the drawing is one of your reasons for believing that there are 47 steel core columns.

"Maybe I am basing my opinion on other evidence."
You implied that you were basing your opinion on both the drawing and on other evidence. My point is that you should base this conclusion solely on the other evidence.

"So, some column areas were inaccessible - what does that lead one to conclude?"
I don't conclude anything. I merely wonder why they were inaccessible.

btw, in your opinion which bit of the core does the famous "concrete core" photo? top or bottom?