If - IF - there was a rust stain in the flowmeter indicating that it was not full of water, then (I hope!) it will have been photographed;
I cannot comment directly but . . . Use your common sense. This is a lawsuit with $267 million at stake. I.H. has one of the best law firms in the country. As you see from the CVs of Murray and Smith, they are consummate experts, probably among the top 100 people in the world for this task. As Smith remarked, he and two attorneys visited the site. He said: "The only access to the mezzanine is a rickety wooden stairs, which the attorneys made this author climb first (load test) before they would use it."
Given these facts, how likely is it that they do not have complete photographic evidence and other types of evidence to back up their claims?
Note also that Rossi has not uploaded any evidence of any kind to contradict their claims. No photos, no testimony, no schematics. Nothing. For example, if he had a heat exchanger in the mezzanine, why is it the pipes leading to it do not show up in photos? And why didn't he take some photos of it before destroying it for no reason and hiding the pipes?