The Core Comprises Steel Beams And Columns With Reinforced Concrete Infill Panels., page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

Topic started on 17-12-2011 @ 12:55 PM by Kester

"A Professor from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne has been confirmed as the man who will advise Lloyds insurance company as they begin to assess insurance claims expected to exceed 1.5 billion dollars in the wake of the attack on New York’s World Trade Center on 11 September.
John Knapton, Professor of Structural Engineering in Newcastle University’s Department of Civil Engineering, has been asked by St Paul Syndicate Services, a group of Lloyds insurance syndicates, to study the chain of events that led up to the collapse of the towers."
Please visit John Knaptons website and carefully read his cv. You will understand why he was chosen to advise Lloyds on this subject.
Now look at his WTC teaching page. Read what he says about the core. "The core comprises steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete infill panels." Photographs taken soon after the destruction of the buildings show some of these panels encasing a stairwell. Survivors reported trying to break through walls to get around locked or jammed doors and finding concrete behind the drywall. Yet we are told the core walls were drywall only.
The method of construction allowed these panels to be cast with very few witnesses. The narrow window spaces prevented clear photography from outside. The workers travelled up in elevators. They didn't see what was happening on the floors below them. Tight security at the bottom prevented witnesses entering and climbing the stairs. The danger presented by the open window spaces could be quoted as the reason for such tight security. The panels could be cast and encased in drywall before the glazing and cladding teams arrived.
Explosives could be concealed inside this concrete, perhaps coating the rebar. With a timed connection between floors the result would be much of what we saw on the day.
Of course the explosives would be seriously degraded by time. The plan was considerably delayed. Several extra methods were added on.
The original plan was for an aircraft to detonate the building at any point. The building would blow away at 'free fall speed' up and down. The top section would fall into the cloud of dust. Sound familiar?
A truck bomb would cause the building to appear to crush itself to dust. To avoid a small homemade truck bomb setting it off the lower section was not rigged hence the surviving remnant.
The Sears tower may have been constructed in a similar fashion. Are any of the WTC criminals involved with the Sears tower?
It was planned to simply leave the buildings standing for a hundred years if they weren't required. However the unexpected corrosion problems forced their hand. After years of study it was accepted the only feasible way to demolish the towers was to surround them in scaffolding and dismantle them piecemeal. That would cost more than building them. So the ill-fated attempt to carry out the original plan was attempted, and failed in front of the whole world.
Both towers failed to detonate and we got the photographic and video evidence that exposed the crime.

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 12:58 PM by liejunkie01

Ummmmm

Wall of text,,,no link or quotes?

Same old chewed up garbage that does not make sense..............

I hate to be so ctitical.................well,,,,,,,,,,,maybe not

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 01:48 PM by Wizayne

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Ummmmm

Wall of text,,,no link or quotes?

Same old chewed up garbage that does not make sense..............

I hate to be so ctitical.................well,,,,,,,,,,,maybe not

So do you have anything to offer in regards to the info provided? Or do you just jump in and say "Hey your thread sucks and lacks format!" a whole three minutes after posting.

This is me jumping in to say " Hey, your reply in this OP's thread sucks and lacks quality and thoughtfulness."
Did I do it right?

In relation to the posted ideas - I dont beleive the building was made with explosives built in. To me that really is a far reach. While I think in those times it would have been easier to hide the opperation, I dont agree that the technology was sufficient. Seems to me if the building was built with demolition in mind from the start, it would have been easier to just plan the building with spots/locations to place future charges when the time came.

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 01:59 PM by LightSpeedDriver

"Let's help a new member out" time. I guess this would be what the OP is referring to?
911scholars.ning.com...

edit on 17/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo

ETA Now let's see people say that a former Professor of Structural Engineering knows not what he is talking about. 5....4....3....
Disclaimer: I didn't read it all yet, doing that now...

edit on 17/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA

ETA2 I read the article I found (assuming it's the same one the OP is referring to) and while it's quite an old post, I must admit I was not aware of:

Knapton later went of to offer $100,000 to anyone who could explain all of the Science and Math that accounted for The Twin Tower collapses, according to the Government's Theory

edit on 17/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA2

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 02:26 PM by pteridine

reply to post by Kester

If the core contained the explosives, why did it remain standing after the tower collapsed?

As to the concrete panel statement, as I remember some survivors managed to cut through the two layers of 5/8" drywall in a stairwell and escape to safety.
ETA: mjbarkl.com... is the link where cutting through the drywall is described. The survivors say that is much thicker than a double 5/8" sheet.

edit on 12/17/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 05:21 PM by liejunkie01

reply to post by Wizayne

So do you have anything to offer in regards to the info provided? Or do you just jump in and say "Hey your thread sucks and lacks format!" a whole three minutes after posting.

This is me jumping in to say " Hey, your reply in this OP's thread sucks and lacks quality and thoughtfulness."
Did I do it right?

I have done my homework on this subject

I have repeatedly stated my stance on this subject with pretty little floor truss diagrams and pictures to back me up

Did the Op back his story up? When I left my post, there were no links or anything.........

If you seriously want me to get into the details..........I will try to squeeze in a little time to beat this dead horse a little further into the earth

But to tell you the truth, it gets a little old......

If the op had anything to say about my post, then he/she could have said it.....................

Also, Anok and I has gone round and round on this subject.....................repeatedly

I did read the story and like I said, it is the same old story wrapped in a pretty little "truther" bow, so it seems important................

And finally, Yes, Lj01 graduated my two year collegiate classes for welding, mig, tig, stick, oaw and I am currently employed as a Union Tinner................I stare at welded trusses all day long and work along side the Ironheads.....................

Oh I admire the I beam clip.

I read blueprints and have a pretty good understanding of building construction.................As soon as the red Iron is up..........we go in.

ETA: Nobody likes being a thread killer..........I do care and believe it or not, LJ01 is a midwesterner just trying to make it.......keep the rent paid and the power on......................ATS has made me a little "colder" and for this I apologize........

edit on 17-12-2011 by liejunkie01 because: ETA

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 05:37 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Kester

If the core contained the explosives, why did it remain standing after the tower collapsed?

It didn't, that is just something you have made up. Regardless of your argument against that observation, the core did not remain standing.

Having said that I do not agree with the hypothesis of explosives built into the concrete, but I have always had a suspicion that the core did have concrete in it.

Do these thin spindly spires waving around before collapsing straight down, look like massive box columns to you?

YouTube Link

Could that be rebar? Look close, it is only one corner of the core, scale is misleading.

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 05:47 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Also, Anok and I has gone round and round on this subject.....................repeatedly

We have?

When did this happen?

So how do you explain the core collapsing from floor trusses failing?

In fact how do you explain the truss failure? As someone who works with metal, you should understand that a sagging truss, or sagging anything from heat, can not put a pulling force on the columns? You should understand why that is not how it works right?

In fact seeing as you work with metal do you not have the supplies to test that hypothesis, and prove that a beam between two columns, when heated up, can pull in the columns? I'd love to see the results of that.

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 09:23 PM by pteridine

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Kester

If the core contained the explosives, why did it remain standing after the tower collapsed?

It didn't, that is just something you have made up. Regardless of your argument against that observation, the core did not remain standing.

Having said that I do not agree with the hypothesis of explosives built into the concrete, but I have always had a suspicion that the core did have concrete in it.

Do these thin spindly spires waving around before collapsing straight down, look like massive box columns to you

Could that be rebar? Look close, it is only one corner of the core, scale is misleading.

The core remained standing for a few seconds after collapse. It is the grid like structure in the center. Here is another version www.youtube.com...

Your suspicions remain as suspicions.

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 09:53 PM by LightSpeedDriver

reply to post by pteridine

I'll admit to knowing Jack about anything structural or technical but thermite/thermate was used to cut at least certain "beams" diagonally (probably not the right word but I'm sure you'll forgive my ignorance on terms). Molten metal was observed in places it should not have been, by multiple witnesses and people well used to burning buildings, firefighters. It was even pouring off the outside of the building even though some try to attribute that to "office fires".

Also, the building did not just collapse, it crumbled and disintegrated. Regardless of where the explosives were, (again multiple witnesses) suspicions abound and no official word on that. A few beams remained standing? Does that negate all other evidence? I would think not. Again. no great intellect or insights here, just eyes and a critical mind that does not like the official "explanation" cough cough.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. And I don't mean kerosene.

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 10:14 PM by pteridine

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by pteridine

I'll admit to knowing Jack about anything structural or technical but thermite/thermate was used to cut at least certain "beams" diagonally (probably not the right word but I'm sure you'll forgive my ignorance on terms). Molten metal was observed in places it should not have been, by multiple witnesses and people well used to burning buildings, firefighters. It was even pouring off the outside of the building even though some try to attribute that to "office fires".

Also, the building did not just collapse, it crumbled and disintegrated. Regardless of where the explosives were, (again multiple witnesses) suspicions abound and no official word on that. A few beams remained standing? Does that negate all other evidence? I would think not. Again. no great intellect or insights here, just eyes and a critical mind that does not like the official "explanation" cough cough.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. And I don't mean kerosene.

If you don't know jack, how can you say thermite was used? There is no evidence of thermite/thermate. There is only a group of people saying that it didn't collapse as they expected it to, so they claim explosives. Molten metal only came out of a level that housed a battery room for bank computer system.

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 10:25 PM by LightSpeedDriver

reply to post by pteridine

Nonsense. Read my post again. Evidence of thermite/thermate is visible (some even analysed the dust left behind but I'm sure that has been "debunked" cough cough) and like I clearly stated, the firefighters attending reported it, as if they were walking through a foundry. Molten metal can be seen pouring off the outside of the building and the aforementioned diagonally cut beams.

edit on 17/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo

ETA And please do not misquote me, I said I don't know Jack about structural engineering. Thanks!

edit on 17/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 11:51 PM by ANOK

reply to post by pteridine

Can you point out where in the core you think this is?....

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 11:52 PM by pteridine

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by pteridine

Nonsense. Read my post again. Evidence of thermite/thermate is visible (some even analysed the dust left behind but I'm sure that has been "debunked" cough cough) and like I clearly stated, the firefighters attending reported it, as if they were walking through a foundry. Molten metal can be seen pouring off the outside of the building and the aforementioned diagonally cut beams.
edit on 17/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo

ETA And please do not misquote me, I said I don't know Jack about structural engineering. Thanks!

Molten metal in a fire is not evidence of thermite, it is evidence of molten metal. The 'thermitic material' was only the red paint that covered the structural steel. I debunked his thermite theory in many threads. Jones doesn't want to admit his team is a batch of screwups because he is enjoying his celebrity and the admiration of the conspiracy sheep.

What you said was "I'll admit to knowing Jack about anything structural or technical." Do you consider thermite and demolitions to be "technical?" If not, we can discuss why Jones' Bentham paper is self inconsistent and comes to unjustfied conclusions.

edit on 12/17/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/18/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 11:57 PM by pteridine

reply to post by ANOK

The corners of the core had the ladder-like structures visible in the videos. Check your second linked photo.

edit on 12/18/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-12-2011 @ 12:29 AM by LightSpeedDriver

reply to post by pteridine

You are being pedantic and obtuse. I was referring to structural technicalities, not thermite, the proof of which was POURING off the outside of the building. Cherry pick much? Whatever.

reply posted on 18-12-2011 @ 04:33 AM by Kester

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Ummmmm

Wall of text,,,no link or quotes?

Same old chewed up garbage that does not make sense..............

I hate to be so ctitical.................well,,,,,,,,,,,maybe not

I apologise to all of you for my very basic computer skills.
My post begins with a quote from the Newcastle University website.
Typing the name John Knapton brings you straight to his website.
If this is the "Same ...garbage.." can someone please show where this has been said before?
I have not seen any evidence that makes my suggestion impossible.
Feel free to be as critical as you want. Surely that's what this site is all about.

reply posted on 18-12-2011 @ 05:06 AM by Kester

Originally posted by Wizayne
I dont beleive the building was made with explosives built in. To me that really is a far reach. While I think in those times it would have been easier to hide the opperation, I dont agree that the technology was sufficient.

An efficient investigation depends on evidence, not beliefs. A far reach is needed when dealing with a very unusual crime that was planned over many years using think tanks composed of very devious minds. I've never seen it myself but I'm told coating rebar with explosives was a method used in sensitive military installations during the cold war. Reasonably safe due to the difficulty detonating the explosives. Circuits can be kept separate till it's time to turn the concrete back into sand, gravel and stripped bare rebar.

reply posted on 18-12-2011 @ 05:35 AM by Kester

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
"Let's help a new member out" time. I guess this would be what the OP is referring to?
911scholars.ning.com...
edit on 17/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo

ETA Now let's see people say that a former Professor of Structural Engineering knows not what he is talking about. 5....4....3....
Disclaimer: I didn't read it all yet, doing that now...
edit on 17/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA

ETA2 I read the article I found (assuming it's the same one the OP is referring to) and while it's quite an old post, I must admit I was not aware of:

Knapton later went of to offer $100,000 to anyone who could explain all of the Science and Math that accounted for The Twin Tower collapses, according to the Government's Theory
edit on 17/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA2

Thanks for your friendly approach.
I've never seen that article before. I find it very unlikely John Knapton would be involved in any financial offer. I think that must be sloppy reporting. It's important to carefully read his cv to understand his status. Those of us in the U.K who've noticed the new concrete barriers on the central reservations of the motorways. John is responsible for those. A biker hitting one of those at speed has more chance of retaining his limbs than the old style barriers. Buried anyone recently in the U.K.? The gravestone was erected according to his specifications. Travelled in an aircraft or used goods which passed through a container handling facility? The aircraft may have used a runway apron and the container facility may have been built according to his guidelines. Widely regarded as the worlds leading authority in some aspects of concrete use. Chosen by Lloyds because of his abilities. He has a sense of humour. When he's trotted out on tv to talk to us about some structural failure he wears a white coat and plays the boffin. Any provably wrong statement he made, (and there have been some), was made for a reason. I imagine his greatest nightmare is someone like me trying to push him into the centre of the WTC debate. Character assassination, career destruction and being 'heart attacked' are some of the obvious hurdles he will face if he decides to pull his weight. Sorry John, that's just how it is.
Can I take this opportunity to point out to all of you. Lloyds chose a concrete expert, not a steel expert.

reply posted on 18-12-2011 @ 06:24 AM by Kester

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Kester

If the core contained the explosives, why did it remain standing after the tower collapsed?

As to the concrete panel statement, as I remember some survivors managed to cut through the two layers of 5/8" drywall in a stairwell and escape to safety.
ETA: mjbarkl.com... is the link where cutting through the drywall is described. The survivors say that is much thicker than a double 5/8" sheet.
edit on 12/17/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

The plan was for both towers to detonate on impact. Both towers failed to detonate giving us the photographic and video evidence that has exposed the crime. If a core began to detonate then failed it may have been helped along by DEW or nukes. What is certain is things didn't go as planned. The photographic, video and physical evidence indicates multiple destructive methods. We've spent 10 years chewing over the photographs and videos. Now it's time to dig up the debris on the Fresh Kills Landfill, with oversight from wtcfamiliesforproperburial, and solve this case. It will be very interesting to see who objects to the examination of the physical evidence.
I found two references in that enormous page to escapes from elevators. One of them of course very well known, the squeegee handle used to score the fiberglass reinforced sheetrock being in the smithsonian. When the towers were built it wasn't known exactly what the effect of the air pressure in the lift shafts would be. The super strong sheetrock was the solution. Could you tell me where on that page there are other references to sheetrock?
The question is how many concrete panels were built in between the beams and columns of the core. My understanding is the insurance money was paid for buildings containing these panels.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^