A colleague from the Czech-Slovak 911 movement have sent me the link to a new video (whose original intention was to debunk another debunkers video about WTC7)

But in fact it shows much more than just counterarguments against the debunkers video.

It shows that from the North tower were during the "collapse" clearly visibly ejected large chunks of its core - ripped in pieces of size of several floors, weghting probably at least hundreds of tons - to a realy considerable distance. - They were in past notoricaly confused with the perimeter columns - but perimeter columns were much thinner and mounted with much narower distances. The column distance in chunks - they can be seen in the video - compared to the north face 64m reference, is at least 4 meters, while the distance of the perimeter columns was 1m. The beam structure on the video looks like literally fitting in the proportions of the core mount - so the assumption it is the chunks of core, not the perimeter, looks like one very well supported. What force ripped the large core pieces lateraly out of the building? A Gravitation??

This is a brief look at a few misleading illustrations, including figures 2-1 & 2-2 from FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study, and NOVA's illustration of the WTC core.

Each of the images below depicts a cross-section of one of the Twin Towers, using a 512x512 pixel image as a scale basis for the creation of the 47 core columns at the center of each tower.

These models were created in Second Life.

First, FEMA 403 fig. 2-2, (Representative structural framing plan, upper floors), in which the core columns are depicted by red dots.

These dots are identical in size and placement to the depiction of core columns in fig. 2-1 (a structural framing plan representative of an upper floor in the towers).

Hello again, Gary, and thank you for your lengthly response. I appreciate the time you spent writing it, and I appreciate your replys to specific points I made. To save time, I copied and pasted your posting below. My responses are in ALL CAPS so you can differentiate at a glance between your words and mine. (I'm not using the capital letters in order to appear to be shouting.)

Hi Paul,

You seem sincere. So you ready to have a real debate? YES, THANK YOU.
No name calling. AMEN, GARY. Let's stick to arguing our points. LET'S.

OK, let's look more closely at your 3 so-called facts in your 1st paragraph above. "SO-CALLED?" FACTS ARE FACTS.

1. Many steel columns were severed by the planes collisions, leaving a heavier load on those left in place.

YES, THIS IS A FACT. YOU CAN ARGUE THAT THE INCREASED LOADS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDING, BUT THE LOADS WERE IN FACT INCREASED. IF YOU AND FOUR BUDDIES ARE CARRYING A LONG, HEAVY LOG, AND YOU SUDDENLY LET GO, THE WEIGHT YOUR FRIENDS ARE CARRYING WILL SUDDENLY INCREASE.

(I DIDN'T TYPE "IT'S." I TYPED "ITS." THE FORMER IS A CONTRACTION FOR "IT IS," THE LATTER IS POSESSIVE FOR "IT." I'M NOT TRYING TO RIDICULE, BUT INFORM. THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST COMMON PUNCTUATION ERROR IN ENGLISH. I MAKE LINGUISTIC ERRORS, TOO, SO PLEASE ADVISE ME - LIKE JON DID - SHOULD YOU FIND ANY.) YES, THAT IS WHAT HEAT DOES TO STEEL. AGAIN, YOU COULD MAKE A CASE THAT THE HEAT INCREASE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WEAKEN THE STEEL ENOUGH TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDINGS. BUT YOU CAN NOT FACTUALLY STATE THAT THE STEEL DID LOT LOSE STRENGTH.