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

Originally posted by Kester
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.

C4 coating rebar in concrete? The people that cut through the drywall didn't encounter concrete. How thick was the coating and how would it behave? What protected the C4 from the highly basic concrete, the heat while it cured, and the corroded surface of the rebar which would catalyze decomposition?
No examination revealed individual panels "exploding" by HE. What would exploding panels do other than to blow out panels? How would exploding rebar have been connected to detonators?
You leave many parts of your theory out. Don't hand wave away the details, as that is where the CTer's fail. Try to come up with a theory and not just "it was magic because I can't explain the details."

Originally posted by pteridine
C4 coating rebar in concrete? The people that cut through the drywall didn't encounter concrete. How thick was the coating and how would it behave? What protected the C4 from the highly basic concrete, the heat while it cured, and the corroded surface of the rebar which would catalyze decomposition?
No examination revealed individual panels "exploding" by HE. What would exploding panels do other than to blow out panels? How would exploding rebar have been connected to detonators?
You leave many parts of your theory out. Don't hand wave away the details, as that is where the CTer's fail. Try to come up with a theory and not just "it was magic because I can't explain the details."

We've already covered the elevator escapes. To recap for anyone who missed it. The elevator shafts were lined with fibreglass reinforced drywall. After the failed attempt to detonate using a truck bomb changes were made to the elevator system. In the event of a major occurrence some of the elevators would stay where they were, some would travel to the bottom of their shafts. Several different types of locking systems would lock the doors.

When the first event occurred the elevator mechanics in that tower ran to the emergency desk in the second tower where they joined their colleagues crowding around the emergency desk shouting "What's happening? What's happening?" When the second event occurred, as the glass and debris rained down outside every one of the 80+ elevator mechanics ran away. Some went straight out, some went down and left through other exits, they scattered and ran and none of them came back. They were the only people who had the knowledge to rescue the 200+ people trapped in the elevators.

Numerous desperate phone calls were made to their office begging them to return. Eventually two of the management began to walk towards the towers then turned back, as any of us would have, when the first tower began to explosively disintegrate.

Some people managed to escape from the elevators by forcing the doors and breaking through the reinforced drywall. When the towers were built it wasn't known what effect air pressure would have on the extra long elevator shafts, the solution was to line them with fiberglass reinforced drywall specially designed for the job. For this reason there was no likelihood that those fortunate enough to escape from the elevators would encounter concrete panels.

Some survivors reported smashing through conventional drywall in an attempt to get around a locked or jammed door. They found concrete behind the drywall and were forced to find an alternative route. Obviously there would be no concrete behind drywall partitions in the offices. It's the core walls that are in question.

How sensitive is c4 to the warmth generated by curing concrete? Could a protective coating on the rebar and a coating on the c4 protect it from any adverse effects caused by rebar or concrete? How thick would it need to be to tear apart the steel frame surrounding each panel? Would the concrete be reduced to dust and gravel? Would the rebar be stripped bare?

Closely examine the photographs that show the grey core violently disintegrating above the whiter mushroom of the rest of the building. Do you see the striations? Those are caused by the exploding panels.

When it comes to detonators I have to admit defeat. Plugged 'inspection ports' may have been left in the concrete and circuits may have been connected in the weeks before the atrocity. Having spent my life working constructively I can't say the use of destructive methods is my forte.

Originally posted by Kester
How sensitive is c4 to the warmth generated by curing concrete? Could a protective coating on the rebar and a coating on the c4 protect it from any adverse effects caused by rebar or concrete? How thick would it need to be to tear apart the steel frame surrounding each panel? Would the concrete be reduced to dust and gravel? Would the rebar be stripped bare?

Closely examine the photographs that show the grey core violently disintegrating above the whiter mushroom of the rest of the building. Do you see the striations? Those are caused by the exploding panels.

When it comes to detonators I have to admit defeat. Plugged 'inspection ports' may have been left in the concrete and circuits may have been connected in the weeks before the atrocity. Having spent my life working constructively I can't say the use of destructive methods is my forte.

In the first para above, you are asking the questions you were supposed to answer to complete your theory. In the second, you make the claim that striations are caused by exploding panels. If that guess is all the evidence you have of exploding panels, this is a weak theory from the beginning.
How would construction of a building be considered destructive? In general, your theory isn't well thought out.

Originally posted by pteridine

In the first para above, you are asking the questions you were supposed to answer to complete your theory. In the second, you make the claim that striations are caused by exploding panels. If that guess is all the evidence you have of exploding panels, this is a weak theory from the beginning.
How would construction of a building be considered destructive? In general, your theory isn't well thought out.

edit on 12/20/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry but you don't seem to be making much sense here. I think it's clear the relatively stable explosive known as c4 wouldn't be adversely affected by the warmth of curing concrete. Protection from rebar and concrete requires a simple protective coating. Stripped bare rebar and concrete reduced to sand and gravel is the result of this method. The individual panels can be seen exploding in photographs of the event. Being so close together it's the striations that show they are separate panels. My reference to my lack of knowledge regarding destructive technologies is of course a reference to my ignorance regarding detonation and the quantities of c4 needed to tear apart the steel frame. In the post 9/11 world it would be unwise to make enquiries about such matters.
You disappoint me, pteridine. This isn't up to the standard of your earlier posts.
Goodnight.

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by pteridine

In the first para above, you are asking the questions you were supposed to answer to complete your theory. In the second, you make the claim that striations are caused by exploding panels. If that guess is all the evidence you have of exploding panels, this is a weak theory from the beginning.
How would construction of a building be considered destructive? In general, your theory isn't well thought out.

edit on 12/20/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry but you don't seem to be making much sense here. I think it's clear the relatively stable explosive known as c4 wouldn't be adversely affected by the warmth of curing concrete. Protection from rebar and concrete requires a simple protective coating. Stripped bare rebar and concrete reduced to sand and gravel is the result of this method. The individual panels can be seen exploding in photographs of the event. Being so close together it's the striations that show they are separate panels. My reference to my lack of knowledge regarding destructive technologies is of course a reference to my ignorance regarding detonation and the quantities of c4 needed to tear apart the steel frame. In the post 9/11 world it would be unwise to make enquiries about such matters.
You disappoint me, pteridine. This isn't up to the standard of your earlier posts.
Goodnight.

You still fail to discuss the details of the rebar coated with C4. If you think that C4 coated rebar wouldn't be noticed by the installers, think again. Working with it will give it away. The chance of discovery will go way up when the workers borrow some of the rebar from the job to do Aunt Mary's side porch. As to a demolition theory, blasting the panels would be a waste of explosive. The explosive has to be specifically directed at the steel structure and the concrete panel explosives don't do that. "Tearing apart the steel frame" by putting explosives somewhere other than on the steel frame will require far more explosive than doing things correctly. As it is, there is no evidence for explosives.

Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Kester

 

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.

Those look like stair wells to me. Look closer: At @ :53 the wobbly spire on the right has a "corkscrew" look to it, like a stairwell. There appear to be four flanking the corners of the elevator "core" in the center. These would be reinforced so so as to lend strength and resistance to collapsing, which we can see. They lasted a little longer. Continuos handrails made of thick steel, rebar and the stair steps themselves all lend to making this part of the structure resist for a few moments more. The central core also contains reinforcement to withstand elevator traffic.

I had not seen this vid before, thanks for bringing it. I saw the collapse live and my immediate impression at the time was stairwells. Didn't some fire men survive at the bottom in a stairwell? There you go...

Edit: Excellent... This pic shows all:


Clearly there are four, count them... four steel reinforced stair cases, one at each corner of the elevator core. This is clearly the structure that partially survives for a few moments before too taking the final plunge. Good find Anok.

reply to post by Kester

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.

Good man. Hey Kester... wassup you digger? Got your message, dropped by. Cool thread you got going here. I'm jealous. Left a reply somewhere to Anok (he's good). If you need any steerage to ATS "bracket code" let me know. 911 threads are too much for me right now. Looks like you are having fun though... seems you came to the right place, huh? Enjoy!

Intrptr

PS: This is ATS. Keep your humble hat and umbrella with you at all times. We are learning.

Originally posted by intrptr
Clearly there are four, count them... four steel reinforced stair cases, one at each corner of the elevator core. This is clearly the structure that partially survives for a few moments before too taking the final plunge. Good find Anok.

Hey good point mate.

I didn't think about stairwells and such. That is why I was leaning towards rebar cause I couldn't think of anything else. I knew it couldn't be the massive core box columns.

At that level they were around 4.5' x 2', 5" thick steel. Get out a tape measure OSers, and just see how large that actually is.

Originally posted by pteridine

You still fail to discuss the details of the rebar coated with C4. If you think that C4 coated rebar wouldn't be noticed by the installers, think again. Working with it will give it away. The chance of discovery will go way up when the workers borrow some of the rebar from the job to do Aunt Mary's side porch. As to a demolition theory, blasting the panels would be a waste of explosive. The explosive has to be specifically directed at the steel structure and the concrete panel explosives don't do that. "Tearing apart the steel frame" by putting explosives somewhere other than on the steel frame will require far more explosive than doing things correctly. As it is, there is no evidence for explosives.

Thank you for raising these points.

The concrete panels are not recorded in the common narrative. The installers, therefore, have not been identified in the common narrative. If I'm correct those who handled the give away materials knew what they were doing. Recently a 'secret' entrance to an underground facility near here suffered damage from a landslide. This caused it to be visible from a public road. The team who guarded the entrance while remedial work took place were dressed as workmen but acted as nervous military guards. Those like myself who witnessed this found their attempts to appear inconspicuous amusing. The population density in the UK means that many 'secret' installations are anything but. The existence of publicly denied facilities in rural areas is often the subject of much local humour. In places where secret means secret it may be easier to claim military or intelligence personnel dressed as workmen are a figment of the imagination. Here it's just part of life.

Picture the way the WTC towers used to look. Bland and soulless. They were military installations. Building bombs.

A correctly designed explosive panel will destroy a steel frame encompassing it and obliterate anything on either side. I don't know exactly how to design such a panel and I don't know anyone who does. However the evidence we see in the form of the achievements of people well versed in this subject informs us that this is so. As you say putting the explosives on the steel frame will have the required effect. Placing extra charges in the edges of the panel connected by the explosives coating the rebar would seem to be the way to achieve the desired effect.

I apologise for changing my story slightly but I will try to use the generic term plastic explosives in future posts. Information from other ATS users suggests some plastic explosives may have a considerably longer shelf life than c4.

I can't agree that there is categorically no evidence for explosives. NIST state they didn't test the steel for explosive residues and for some reason they haven't mentioned the possibility of testing the rest of the debris. The majority of that debris is on the Fresh Kills Landfill. Members of wtcfamiliesforproperburial have noticed tyre tracks running back and forth across the grave site. It is possible contamination has occurred in which case other tests will have to be done, such as calculating the energy required to reduce the buildings to the pulverised state of the debris in the time recorded.

A more accurate statement would be to say no evidence for explosives has been presented by the government funded investigative team. We don't know what evidence is there if we don't look.

Originally posted by Kester

A correctly designed explosive panel will destroy a steel frame encompassing it and obliterate anything on either side. I don't know exactly how to design such a panel and I don't know anyone who does. However the evidence we see in the form of the achievements of people well versed in this subject informs us that this is so. As you say putting the explosives on the steel frame will have the required effect. Placing extra charges in the edges of the panel connected by the explosives coating the rebar would seem to be the way to achieve the desired effect.
I apologise for changing my story slightly but I will try to use the generic term plastic explosives in future posts. Information from other ATS users suggests some plastic explosives may have a considerably longer shelf life than c4.
A more accurate statement would be to say no evidence for explosives has been presented by the government funded investigative team. We don't know what evidence is there if we don't look.

Adding extra explosive to panels would not be the best way to keep things quiet. It would be better to place smaller charges where they would break key joints, but it is your dream so you can imagine the explosives where you want them. If you want a different explosive in your theory, that will not change the problems you have created for yourself so select anything but the silent invisible explosive set off by thought waves that all others require, i.e., pick an explosive that existed when you claim it was planted.
Now all you have to do is to figure out how you can detonate them in sequence so that each floor is cleared in less than 200 milliseconds, that the detonation sequence starts at or just below the impact floors, and that the sound and light signatures of high explosives are hidden during the sequence.
As I said earlier, there are many things that were not tested for. One cannot test for everything or the job would never be done. Termites and hacksaws were not tested for, nor were Smurf droppings. Should we dig up everything and test for everything? If we don't find it will it mean that it's been supressed or that we haven't examined every millimeter of every object? Who would fund such a massive project and why would they?

Had there been evidence suggesting explosives, explosives would have been tested for. There wasn't any. Jones thought he found thermite in a bassackwards joke of a paper. There wasn't any. Convoluted and tortuous schemes of those desiring a conspiracy are ubiquitous but none have anything substantial to support them. Those that propose such are technically weak as well as operationally challenged. Plotters would take the path where the least could go wrong and with minimal chance of discovery. What path would that be? That path would be to fly airplanes into the buildings and let the chips fall where they may. The path of no physical evidence of any sort of inside job, despite the youtube videos with lines drawn on them. The road where the fringe elements are happily keeping each other busy with more and more complicated Rube Goldberg machinations, each feeding off the other and trying for acceptance by the Fringians and Farfringians, and never getting close to the actual plot while providing never ending entertainment for the sane.
The real plot is the coverup of incompetent leadership extant in the Bush Administration. The political appointees selected by the insiders were among the least capable in the history of the US. A hint of the quality of such came during hurricane Katrina with the exposure of the head of FEMA as a complete dolt. If you wish to search for plotters, look at agency heads who ignored reports of their field personnel while playing politics and then covered up when their actions came to light as the buildings came down.

reply to post by Kester

The physical evidence I keep referring to on the Fresh Kills Landfill proves the nature of the materials used in the buildings.

I'm behind the curve here maybe... did you say you had physical evidence from Fresh Kills to support your claims
that the buildings were designed differently than they were built? Proof in the buried rubble? This is ATS. Now where is that proof. And I mean accredited scientific analysis proof by the top engineers from the biggest corporations. You know, the ones that brought the buildings down?

reply to post by ANOK

At that level they were around 4.5' x 2', 5" thick steel. Get out a tape measure OSers, and just see how large that actually is.

Zing... those are massively thickly able to hold all that vanity ego building tallest world trade tower erection up against the force of gravity then, huh? I always wondered about that. An exo skeletal structure design like that has its weaknesses I guess. They built the damn things quickly and at the tightest constraints for cost vs. height and durability. We can see that in your photo. Melt the support for but one concrete slab floor near the top and chain reaction pancaking of the floors one by one unto the ground was the result. I guess the perps saw that too.

Also helps to explain how everything was ground to dust. Put massive steel girders, car sized blocks of concrete, glass and all manner of office furniture like desks, file cabinets, computers, etc. into a giant blender and run on high for ten seconds. Pooof!

reply to post by intrptr

Also helps to explain how everything was ground to dust. Put massive steel girders, car sized blocks of concrete, glass and all manner of office furniture like desks, file cabinets, computers, etc. into a giant blender and run on high for ten seconds. Pooof!

I can't tell if you're being ironic or serious...note the top floors "grinding to dust" the floors below them, and creating a dust cloud many times as big as the part of the building committing hari-kari. Something's not right in Gotham.

Originally posted by septic

I can't tell if you're being ironic or serious...

It's difficult to tell anything with intrptr except that he's very, very good at interpreting evidence.

Originally posted by intrptr
... did you say you had physical evidence from Fresh Kills to support your claims
that the buildings were designed differently than they were built? Proof in the buried rubble? This is ATS. Now where is that proof.

I don't have that evidence in my possession, It's buried on Fresh Kills. wtcfamiliesforproperburial need to be sensitively communicated with by someone with better social skills than me. They want the material under 1/4 inch containing much of the missing human remains moved to a respectful place as they were told was going to happen, before it was suddenly bulldozed over the rest of the building remains. Again the words used give a false impression. Unrecovered human remains. Whats unrecovered about a pile of fine debris? It was recovered then disposed of like garbage. That's the issue that led to the creation of wtcfamiliesforproperburial.

The 'fines' are part of the evidence. They have to be treated as human remains because it is impossible to separate the fine human remains from the fine building remains. The larger debris can be treated as evidence. The sorting process consisted of passing the debris over rollers grading it into different sizes. It was then put onto conveyor belts and passed in front of searchers who looked for human remains, evidence and personal effects. They didn't treat the debris itself as evidence, just searched for evidence amongst it.

The average size of the debris is one form of evidence indicating the energy that turned the buildings into what they became. Adding the time the destruction took to the equation gives a result which is either possible or not possible in a gravitational collapse.

Another form of evidence is explosive residue, not tested for by NIST but possibly not detectable now due to the age of the debris and the possibility of contamination. Members of wtcfamiliesforproperburial visiting the landfill, the only gravesite they have, noted tyre tracks running back and forth across the surface. The sanitation department may have a plausible explanation for this. It isn't impossible that a contaminant or catalyst was sprayed on to prevent successful testing for residue. The words used are always, "The steel hasn't been tested for explosives". Well what about testing the rest of the building materials?

Finally the evidence that there were reinforced concrete infill panels between the beams and columns of the core will be there in the form of sand, gravel, chunks of concrete and perhaps rebar if it wasn't all recycled. Difficult but not impossible to calculate what quantity of sand, gravel and concrete should be there without the panels and what quantity with. The more certain evidence would be photographs of greater quantities of sand and gravel and chunks of concrete in the center of the debris pile than the alleged construction would explain. The lighter concrete on the floors had a different composition.

Chunks of concrete testing positive for explosive residue would be the most damming evidence of all.

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by septic

I can't tell if you're being ironic or serious...

It's difficult to tell anything with intrptr except that he's very, very good at interpreting evidence.

Well, I have a hard time picturing evidence like this grinding to dust:

Originally posted by septic

Well, I have a hard time picturing evidence like this grinding to dust:

The whole issue is mind bending. When I finally got to where I was going with my own 9/11 investigation I wasn't very good company for several days afterwards. People who use complex analysis in their professional lives can see at a glance it's a huge fraud, but they know deep down it will distort their lives if they give it the attention it deserves. So they enter a state of denial and quite madly rearrange the reality that's in front of them to make themselves comfortable. One of the illogical things people do is take the total weight of the tower, place it at the top of the tower and then use it to crush the tower to dust. The magic jet fuel is another one. It burns in huge fireballs outside the buildings, rains down unburnt from the bottom of the fireballs, causes huge blazes inside the buildings, runs down the elevator shafts and finally persists in the rubble for months afterwards causing rapid onset of leukaemia. All from around ten thousand gallons from each 'plane'. I'm told ten thousand gallons fits in a tank slightly larger than 11 feet by 11 feet by 11 feet and spread evenly across one floor of one of the towers would be about 1/16 inch deep. Someone please correct me if I'm wildly wrong with those estimates.

The truth is we all know the towers were blown into tiny fragments because thats what we saw. It's all just a game of make believe.

A journalist I spoke to summed it up in one sentence. "I don't want to think I'm living in a world where such things are possible". Doesn't that give you confidence in the mainstream media!

reply to post by Kester


I think of it like a magic trick. The magician appears to saw a woman in half, but we know its only an illusion.

We know the contents of the tower turned to dust because we saw it turn to dust before our eyes, but it was just an illusion. The contents weren't turned to dust any more than the woman is cut in half, they couldn't be, it would be impossible to "dustify" the contents, yet the TeeVee shows it "dustifying" almost immediately...not being crushed, but exploding like a fuse.

The most rational explanation to the dust is that it was just an illusion, placed there to disguise the demolition in a literal smokescreen and at the same time give the truth movement topics to discuss for years on end. The buildings were likely gutted of their contents prior to demolition, as all demolished buildings routinely are.

Farfetched? Sure, but not nearly as farfetched as mythical nuclear weapons, or directed energy, or those silly planes.

Originally posted by septic
give the truth movement topics to discuss for years on end.

And not just the truth movement but the debunker movement as well. Endless discussion while the perpetrators carry on setting up the scaffold and preparing the nooses. For everyones benefit we must bring this to a reasonable conclusion. That's why I keep emphasising the physical evidence on the Fresh Kills Landfill. There are only a limited number of excuses people can give for why we shouldn't investigate the WTC disaster in the time honoured fashion.

Originally posted by pteridine
Adding extra explosive to panels would not be the best way to keep things quiet.
Now all you have to do is to figure out how you can detonate them in sequence so that each floor is cleared in less than 200 milliseconds, that the detonation sequence starts at or just below the impact floors, and that the sound and light signatures of high explosives are hidden during the sequence.
Jones thought he found thermite in a bassackwards joke of a paper.
The political appointees selected by the insiders were among the least capable in the history of the US. A hint of the quality of such came during hurricane Katrina with the exposure of the head of FEMA as a complete dolt. If you wish to search for plotters, look at agency heads who ignored reports of their field personnel while playing politics and then covered up when their actions came to light as the buildings came down.

It doesn't appear to have been a quiet event. Multiple circuits detonating in very quick succession creates a roar to our ears rather than the series of bangs heard in many conventional demolitions.
The detonation sequence began both above and below the impact zone. The video evidence shows the upper parts of the buildings blowing away upwards but of course simultaneously falling into the rapidly growing dust cloud.
The light signature of explosives is visible in some demolitions and not visible in others depending on the placement of the explosives.
I freely admit to ignorance regarding the technical details of detonation, particularly sequential detonation.
I haven't mentioned the former BYU professor nor will I. It seems inappropriate that you should attempt to use him to make some point about my words.
I readily agree that incompetence amongst officials is rife and I believe this should be seen by the young as a strong motive to enter politics and help clear this mess up.
I do not "wish to search for plotters". I seek answers for the questions that presented themselves to me when I innocently began looking for more details on the WTC disaster.