Originally posted by pteridine

As I have shown, the claim that the core was only covered with drywall was substantated by the people who built the towers and by the trapped workers who cut through it.

What proportion of the core walls, excluding the elevator shafts which are well documented as having been lined with fiberglass reinforced drywall, did these trapped workers cut through? What evidence did the "people who built the towers" present to substantiate the claim that the core was only covered with drywall?

Originally posted by GenRadek

The steel columns of the towers were melted by fire

Now, this is a load of BS, since no one has said the steel actually melted from the fires. The only ones that said and spread this bunch of malarkey, are................ wait for it....................................................

TRUTHERS!!!!


Surprised? No one in NIST, FEMA, or any reputable organization has stated that steel melted from the fires. This "engineer" should have realized this mistake, or at least done some research into it.

Many experts were quoted by journalists as having mentioned melted steel. The journalists are responsible for the quotes, the experts are responsible for the words that came out of their mouths. Accuracy is not the mainstream medias strong point.
The real question was and still is 'Where did the energy come from that transformed the buildings into dust and debris in the length of time documented by the video evidence'. A ridiculous debate is very useful for those who want to obscure a real debate.
I suggest that you carefully read his cv and compare his achievements to your own.

Originally posted by pteridine

Maybe he is a "former professor" for a reason.

Is he a "former professor" or formerly of Newcastle University?
I suggest you carefully read his cv, paying particular attention to his work since leaving Newcastle University, and compare his achievements to your own.

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by pteridine

Maybe he is a "former professor" for a reason.

Is he a "former professor" or formerly of Newcastle University?
I suggest you carefully read his cv, paying particular attention to his work since leaving Newcastle University, and compare his achievements to your own.

I am not interested in his CV or his work. His job is to reduce the financial burden on Lloyds by bringing as many things into question as possible.
My question to you is about why concrete reinforcement of the core is important. Do you need the existence of concrete to claim hidden explosives?

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by pteridine

Maybe he is a "former professor" for a reason.

Is he a "former professor" or formerly of Newcastle University?
I suggest you carefully read his cv, paying particular attention to his work since leaving Newcastle University, and compare his achievements to your own.

I am not interested in his CV or his work. His job is to reduce the financial burden on Lloyds by bringing as many things into question as possible.
My question to you is about why concrete reinforcement of the core is important. Do you need the existence of concrete to claim hidden explosives?

Is he a former professor as you stated? His cv and the work he has done since leaving Newcastle University show his capabilities. Do you see some way he or Lloyds can gain through his statement "The core comprises steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete infill panels." Every University or engineering website I've looked at claims drywall. This seems to be a notable anomaly. The exact nature of the components of the Towers is important to all of us. Without this knowledge we cannot know what we are discussing. Only evidence can prove the nature of these components. Assertions aren't proof. The physical evidence on the Fresh Kills Landfill combined with the photographic and video evidence is the most reliable evidence I'm aware of. Of course any claim can be made regardless of the existence of particular building components. The question is which claims can be substantiated with evidence.

Originally posted by Kester

Is he a former professor as you stated? His cv and the work he has done since leaving Newcastle University show his capabilities. Do you see some way he or Lloyds can gain through his statement "The core comprises steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete infill panels." Every University or engineering website I've looked at claims drywall. This seems to be a notable anomaly. The exact nature of the components of the Towers is important to all of us. Without this knowledge we cannot know what we are discussing. Only evidence can prove the nature of these components. Assertions aren't proof. The physical evidence on the Fresh Kills Landfill combined with the photographic and video evidence is the most reliable evidence I'm aware of. Of course any claim can be made regardless of the existence of particular building components. The question is which claims can be substantiated with evidence.

It was stated that he left the university; his CV is not of interest to me.
Why is he saying concrete if all other sources say drywall? Perhaps he is misinformed. I don't know how this would be advantageous to Lloyds. If it insured wallboard and it was something else, maybe that is a loophole in their contract or allows negotiation with the prospect of a drawn out legal battle, winnable or not.
I ask you again if concrete in the core is a necessary component of your theory.
The 'exact' nature of the towers is not knowable nor is it important to the outcome of 911. No one knows what desk was where or how many cabinets of paper filled what office but the structure of the towers is known and that is what is important to understanding the collapse.

Originally posted by pteridine



I ask you again if concrete in the core is a necessary component of your theory.
The 'exact' nature of the towers is not knowable nor is it important to the outcome of 911. No one knows what desk was where or how many cabinets of paper filled what office but the structure of the towers is known and that is what is important to understanding the collapse.

The presence or absence of reinforced concrete infill panels between the steel beams and columns is a necessary component to everyones understanding of the disintegration of the buildings. You say that the structure of the towers is known. I say not all are in agreement as shown by the statement made by Lloyds adviser, John Knapton. "The core comprises steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete infill panels." Those interested can do their own research and decide if, in their opinion, the structure of the towers is known. The photographic, video and physical evidence carries far more certainty than words and diagrams.
The proportion of the buildings that travelled up and drifted away was so great that it was visible with the naked eye from the space station. I encourage everyone who hasn't done so to look at the photographs taken from the space station. The word 'collapse' means to fall down.

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by pteridine



I ask you again if concrete in the core is a necessary component of your theory.
The 'exact' nature of the towers is not knowable nor is it important to the outcome of 911. No one knows what desk was where or how many cabinets of paper filled what office but the structure of the towers is known and that is what is important to understanding the collapse.

The presence or absence of reinforced concrete infill panels between the steel beams and columns is a necessary component to everyones understanding of the disintegration of the buildings. You say that the structure of the towers is known. I say not all are in agreement as shown by the statement made by Lloyds adviser, John Knapton. "The core comprises steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete infill panels." Those interested can do their own research and decide if, in their opinion, the structure of the towers is known. The photographic, video and physical evidence carries far more certainty than words and diagrams.
The proportion of the buildings that travelled up and drifted away was so great that it was visible with the naked eye from the space station. I encourage everyone who hasn't done so to look at the photographs taken from the space station. The word 'collapse' means to fall down.

I see that you do need concrete panels for your theory; "If concrete panels were installed containing explosives for the purpose of a False Flag atrocity every effort would be made to avoid anything going on record."

Such a theory has a few holes in it. In fact, it is a bag of holes tied together with the thin string of your imagination. Explosives, other than black powder, don't store well outside of environmentally controlled spaces. Over time, they tend to decompose and lose power or become unstable. 'Nitroglycerin' [glyceryl trinitrate] is a common example. When freshly prepared, it is water white, looks like glycerin, and has predictable properties. Residual acid causes it to turn yellow over time. The darker the yellow the more decomposition has occurred and the more sensitive it is. The good news is that it is less potent. The bad news is that it is not that less potent and can still blow you to pieces.
Whomever you claim to have done this would know that. They would not want a surprise boom to tip their hand 25 years into a 30 year plot. Then there is the problem of detonation in sequence. At 200 milliseconds per floor, detcord would be required, so detcord would have to be strung from floor to floor. This might cause a problem and would have to be hidden in electrical conduit. Unfortunately, detcord is also an organic nitrate and has the same decomposition problems as other HE. The problem of initiation is next. How would you start the chain? With electricity out, you would need a battery wired into the circuit. Who would throw the switch? How would you start the explosives on the correct floor and not have floors above also explode. Another problem you face is the placement of the explosives. Burying them in the walls of the core might not be the best place. You should carefully consider the details of placement and not merely use a broad brush approach to your theory.

Originally posted by pteridine

I see that you do need concrete panels for your theory; "If concrete panels were installed containing explosives for the purpose of a False Flag atrocity every effort would be made to avoid anything going on record."

Such a theory has a few holes in it. In fact, it is a bag of holes tied together with the thin string of your imagination. Explosives, other than black powder, don't store well outside of environmentally controlled spaces. Over time, they tend to decompose and lose power or become unstable. 'Nitroglycerin' [glyceryl trinitrate] is a common example. When freshly prepared, it is water white, looks like glycerin, and has predictable properties. Residual acid causes it to turn yellow over time. The darker the yellow the more decomposition has occurred and the more sensitive it is. The good news is that it is less potent. The bad news is that it is not that less potent and can still blow you to pieces.
Whomever you claim to have done this would know that. They would not want a surprise boom to tip their hand 25 years into a 30 year plot. Then there is the problem of detonation in sequence. At 200 milliseconds per floor, detcord would be required, so detcord would have to be strung from floor to floor. This might cause a problem and would have to be hidden in electrical conduit. Unfortunately, detcord is also an organic nitrate and has the same decomposition problems as other HE. The problem of initiation is next. How would you start the chain? With electricity out, you would need a battery wired into the circuit. Who would throw the switch? How would you start the explosives on the correct floor and not have floors above also explode. Another problem you face is the placement of the explosives. Burying them in the walls of the core might not be the best place. You should carefully consider the details of placement and not merely use a broad brush approach to your theory.

One of the questions I have is 'Did the WTC Towers have reinforced concrete infill panels in the core walls?' This seems to be the description the insurance money was paid for. If the answer is yes my next question is 'Was the rebar in these panels coated with plastic explosives?'

Is the shelf life of plastic explosives extended when encased in concrete? If so by how much?

David Rockefeller made comments in 1994 that could indicate impatience with the delays the plot was facing. This didn't start as a 30 year plot. The inevitable obstructions that naturally occur when evil deeds are prepared considerably delayed the event. The unexpected corrosion caused by the dissimilar metals, salt and stray current from the elevator motors meant the towers were becoming too dangerous to be left standing as per the original plan. Before construction started it was thought if they weren't used they could be simply left. The corrosion presented the probability that either someone would lean against a window and it would pop out, or a severe storm would tear loose sheets of cladding with disastrous results. The groups who worked on the problems of re-glazing, re-cladding and conventional demolition could only come up with hopelessly expensive solutions. Can you imagine the embarrassment felt by key individuals if the world was able to watch the very lengthy piecemeal demolition of the iconic towers due to silly mistakes regarding design and materials? How many yachtsmen want to buy a secondhand aluminium boat? Dropping a copper coin into the bilges can have a life changing effect at a later date.

The plot was delayed by many years and when eventually enacted was a disastrous failure. It's important that everyone realises this. We're analysing a disastrous failure.

No one knows how many possible ways there are carry a reaction from one floor to another. Research into such subjects is shrouded in secrecy. Limiting ones ideas to conventional detcord, charges and initiation is just silly in this highly unusual case. The degraded condition of the explosives dictated the need for other destructive methods to be used. Other researchers may be able to fill in some of the blanks. That's the beauty of the cooperative 9/11 investigation enabled by sites such as this.

Originally posted by Kester
No one knows how many possible ways there are carry a reaction from one floor to another. Research into such subjects is shrouded in secrecy. Limiting ones ideas to conventional detcord, charges and initiation is just silly in this highly unusual case. The degraded condition of the explosives dictated the need for other destructive methods to be used. Other researchers may be able to fill in some of the blanks. That's the beauty of the cooperative 9/11 investigation enabled by sites such as this.

The above statement is the key. You are claiming magic. You want a conspiracy that includes demolition of the towers but, like many others who want the same, have no idea how it could be done. When challenged to come up with a plausible scenario, you claim mysterious methods with unknown " other destructive methods" that are not limited "to conventional detcord, charges and initiation." Then you cap this beauty off with "That's the beauty of the cooperative 9/11 investigation enabled by sites such as this."

What you are saying is that you haven't a clue how your theory could be carried out, what could be used, where it would be placed, and how it would be initiated. You invoke the magical, invisible, untraceable, extra-powerful, flashless, noiseless, explosives that existed 40 years ago but which no one heard about until you and your desperate but technically inept fellow travelers needed them for a contrived and hopelessly implausible theory. You are blissfully unaware of the properties of explosives and behavior of various material under impulsive loads, thermohydrodynamics, chemistry and physics. You have never set or detonated a high explosive charge of any kind in your life nor have you demolished structures using such charges. In a further attempt to cover your complete lack of the development of your theory past the half-baked idea level you talk of "cooperative investigation." What investigation? Watching youtube videos and reading the "some-clowns-4-truth" websites? Would the clever plotters have pulled off the crime of the century but then accidently neglected to cover their tracks so "investigators" can discover the plot by watching videos on the web?
Go back to your pet theory. Look at the structure of the building and decide where to place charges, how many, and how big. Pick an explosive available in 1970 or when you claim the explosive was planted. Select a way to time the explosions that was available in 1970 or whenever. Determine if the videos match what would happen if your theory had been put into practice. Continue doing this until you get a match of video with theory and then post your idea. Do not include magic or wave away criticisms by saying that limiting one's ideas to reality is just silly when you can imagine anything to explain a theory.
Remember that here are no silent explosives and that the effects of thermite cannot be timed accurately enough for controlled demolitions.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Kester
No one knows how many possible ways there are carry a reaction from one floor to another. Research into such subjects is shrouded in secrecy. Limiting ones ideas to conventional detcord, charges and initiation is just silly in this highly unusual case. The degraded condition of the explosives dictated the need for other destructive methods to be used. Other researchers may be able to fill in some of the blanks. That's the beauty of the cooperative 9/11 investigation enabled by sites such as this.

The above statement is the key. You are claiming magic. You want a conspiracy that includes demolition of the towers but, like many others who want the same, have no idea how it could be done. When challenged to come up with a plausible scenario, you claim mysterious methods with unknown " other destructive methods" that are not limited "to conventional detcord, charges and initiation." Then you cap this beauty off with "That's the beauty of the cooperative 9/11 investigation enabled by sites such as this."

What you are saying is that you haven't a clue how your theory could be carried out, what could be used, where it would be placed, and how it would be initiated. You invoke the magical, invisible, untraceable, extra-powerful, flashless, noiseless, explosives that existed 40 years ago but which no one heard about until you and your desperate but technically inept fellow travelers needed them for a contrived and hopelessly implausible theory. You are blissfully unaware of the properties of explosives and behavior of various material under impulsive loads, thermohydrodynamics, chemistry and physics. You have never set or detonated a high explosive charge of any kind in your life nor have you demolished structures using such charges. In a further attempt to cover your complete lack of the development of your theory past the half-baked idea level you talk of "cooperative investigation." What investigation? Watching youtube videos and reading the "some-clowns-4-truth" websites? Would the clever plotters have pulled off the crime of the century but then accidently neglected to cover their tracks so "investigators" can discover the plot by watching videos on the web?
Go back to your pet theory. Look at the structure of the building and decide where to place charges, how many, and how big. Pick an explosive available in 1970 or when you claim the explosive was planted. Select a way to time the explosions that was available in 1970 or whenever. Determine if the videos match what would happen if your theory had been put into practice. Continue doing this until you get a match of video with theory and then post your idea. Do not include magic or wave away criticisms by saying that limiting one's ideas to reality is just silly when you can imagine anything to explain a theory.
Remember that here are no silent explosives and that the effects of thermite cannot be timed accurately enough for controlled demolitions.

First let me congratulate you on the poetic nature of your comment. I greatly enjoyed it. I read it twice and smiled both times.

Short answer.
c4 coating rebar in reinforced concrete infill panels between beams and columns.
Close examination of photographs showing grey core exploding above whiter 'mushroom' reveals individual panels exploding.
c4 seriously degraded hence additional methods.
I haven't seen enough evidence to identify other placements.

When asking for a full explanation do you consider the fact that the NIST investigation was carried out using the input of rather more than one individual? I'll do my best out of respect for your own selfless efforts but I'm afraid I will fall short.

I haven't heard of clowns-4-truth but it wouldn't surprise me. In the course of my investigations I've come across statements from more than one magician/illusionist saying "When I saw the fireball I thought, there's the distraction, where's the real action happening?" This led to the formation of magiciansfor911truth.

As to your question "Would the clever plotters have pulled off the crime of the century but then accidentally neglected to cover their tracks so "investigators" can discover the plot by watching videos on the web?" My opinion is very strongly that the whole operation was a dismal failure. Both towers were supposed to detonate on impact. The video and photographic evidence gained in the time between the impacts and the eventual success of one of the many back up plans is the main factor responsible for starting the worldwide cooperative investigation. A thorough analysis of the physical evidence on the Fresh Kills Landfill will finish it. Wise investors will sell their stocks in the T shirt industry before that happens.