Ah the MIND READING technique!! Yes, when evidence doesn't materialize or the people involved say things that don't fit the conspiracy theory, just claim they are lying. Unless, like Silverstein, they say something that allegedly blows the cover on the whole thing on television. Then that's real!

The omnipotent ZOG/Illuminati/Alien/Corporate Fascist Oil Company(pick one based on your stated political ideology) conspirators- super geniuses and blithering idiots at the same time!

Nothing that Robertson said is, or is being claimed to be, untrue. His remarks were obviously and understandably intended to credibly accentuate the positive from the standpoint of proprietary reputations. There is nothing here that fails to fit "the conspiracy theory".

Nothing that Robertson said is, or is being claimed to be, untrue. His remarks were obviously and understandably intended to credibly accentuate the positive from the standpoint of proprietary reputations. There is nothing here that fails to fit "the conspiracy theory".

Except the fact that he apparently expected the buildings to fall at some point- he was not surprised that they fell.

Except the fact that he apparently expected the buildings to fall at some point- he was not surprised that they fell.

I'm again prompted to recommend the Remedial Reading tapes.

I'm again prompted to recommend the Remedial Reading tapes.

Apparently your boundless ego prevents you from understanding this simple concept:

You claim Robertson is an authorative source- we agree.

Why is Robertson correct in supporting your claims about the building construction, but not correct when he does not show disbelief that the towers fell?

It appears that our concrete-reinforced core perimeter thesis has carried the day, since we have evidently returned to the beginning of the causation question with the implicit imputation to Robertson, by JP, of implicit acquiescence in the official cover story.

A qualified measure of progress.

So, for the sake of argument, let us grant Robertson's acquiescence. The Towers could have been destroyed by the aircraft alone.

Then did the Towers descend as if destroyed by the action of the aircraft?

The answer is no. Even if the Towers were, in theory, vulnerable to especially large and heavily-fueled vehicles, the collapses were not consistent with that scenario realized

Apparently your boundless ego prevents you from understanding this simple concept:

You claim Robertson is an authorative source- we agree.

Why is Robertson correct in supporting your claims about the building construction, but not correct when he does not show disbelief that the towers fell?

Because we do not expect him to show disbelief, as explained. Thus he acted correctly in not expressing disbelief even if, in fact, he was disbelieving. And I do not insist that he did not accept the official account on its face.

As explained above, it makes no difference to the demolition thesis what he believed in this respect.

Please reflect upon the fact that the correct characterization of the buildings' structure does not prove that they were demolished - it merely prevents the exclusion you have attempted of the explosive-coated-rebar theory.

But the thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel finally brought down the noble structures."

Okay, okay already, settle down guys. We'll forget the laws of physics which say jet fuel burns at a temperature not hot enough to even soften steel, we ignore the FACT that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the jet fuel in the SOUTH TOWER Plane blew up in a giant AIR BURST since the Aircraft NEARLY MISSED its target and what are we left with?

Two planes hitting two buildings and SIX buildings destroyed.

Right after the Lease changed hands and Larry Insured them to the Max.

Planes expertly flown 'Top Gun' style by hard drinking, fornicating, but devout muslim, amateur arab suicide lunatics who could not get licenced to fly Cessnas, could not get their names on the Ailine Passenger Lists, failed to appear on any Airport security Cameras and most tellingly, managed to PARACHUTE out of the Flt77 Aircraft, since the AUTOPSY which identifed all bodies on board that Plane in the Pentagon found no dead Arabs which means they obviously ESCAPED James Bond 007 style, just seconds before it hit the building at 500 Mph! (Hey Butch, WHO are these guys?)

But wait,........ there's more!

If you 'jet fuel did it' guys are right, you've hit on a wonderful new discovery! Think about it, in future forget all that rubbish about carefully rigging old derelict buildings for controlled demolitions. All you've gotta do is get some firehoses, drag 'em up to the top floors an pump some jet fuel up into the sucker, strike a match and BINGO! The buildings will collapse in a few short hours! Right into their own footprints!

No worries. Just like WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7, after all, there's the old English saying, 'what can't speak can't lie'.

What a discovery! Think about the cost savings! You should patent the idea immediately, maybe we call it, 'OSAMA'S MAGICAL KEROSINE METHOD', or how about, 'INSTANT OSAMA DEMOLITIONS' don't call us, we'll call you.

I'm sure you chaps can come up with many more.

If I may make a suggestion for F. and JP:

Go ahead and concede that, as obviously is the case, there was a rebar-reinforced concrete core perimeter - and go back to the point about no such thing as the imagined explosive-coated rebar, which, we are assured by the affiliates of the common person, Fissile, has no counterpart in reality.

This morning I contacted, via e-mail, the Skyscraper Museum, in New York City. Following is a copy of the the e-mail that I sent to the museum, and the response that I received from the museum. I've edited out my real name and e-mail address, I've also edited out the name of the person that responded, since I'm assuming that he probably doesn't want his name mentioned on a board of this type.

This is the URL for the museum: http://skyscraper.org/home_flash.htm

This is the museum's e-mail address: info@skyscraper.org

I encourage you to contact them yourself, and ask about the composition of the WTC core.

I've also sent an e-mail, using my real name and e-mail address, to Leslie Robertson's architectural engineering firm. When I receive a response, I'll post that also.

------------------------------------------------------------

M wrote:
To Whom it May Concern:

Your web page about the WTC makes the following claim:

"The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry." http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm

Since concrete was used as a decking material, do you mean that masonry was not used as a structural element? Any additional information that you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

With kind regards,

M ***

M,

Thanks for writing. The statement you reference was made by the structural engineer of the building, who is speaking most directly about the load-bearing shaftway walls of the elevator core, which were made without concrete. It is true that concrete was used on the decking of the pre-fabricated flooring, but, as you have surmised, this is not a structural element of the building.
Best Regards,
M*** P*

Thanks for writing. The statement you reference was made by the structural engineer of the building, who is speaking most directly about the load-bearing shaftway walls of the elevator core, which were made without concrete. It is true that concrete was used on the decking of the pre-fabricated flooring, but, as you have surmised, this is not a structural element of the building.
Best Regards,
M*** P*

You have affirmed that which is not in dispute - the concrete decking of the flooring was not a structural element.

You have affirmed that which is not in dispute - the concrete decking of the flooring was not a structural element.

I think it's you who is "herniating" himself in "an attempt to get that rationalization off the ground" as regards your exploding rebar "theory".

You seem not to have understood this part of the museum's response to my inquiry about reinforced concrete: "The statement you reference was made by the structural engineer of the building, who is speaking most directly about the load-bearing shaftway walls of the elevator core, which were made without concrete."

Perhaps you are the one in need of a remedial reading course?

These are the facts, as regard your explosive rebar "theory":

1) I've made personal inquiries of three friends, with extensive experience in construction and military demolitions, not one of them has every heard of C4 coated rebar, neither have they heard of new commercial buildings being pre-wired with scuttling charges.

2) I have proven that the WTC towers did not use reinforced concrete as structural elements. Even if C4 coated rebar was a reality, and it isn't, it could not have been employed in the construction of the WTC towers, as scuttling charges, since reinforced concrete was not used as a structural element of the towers.

Now you can go back to to your "theory" of Larry Silverstein and the invisible Mossad demolition crew, and how they managed to wire the WTC complex with tons of explosives in 6 weeks with no one noticing.

You seem not to have understood this part of the museum's response to my inquiry about reinforced concrete: "The statement you reference was made by the structural engineer of the building, who is speaking most directly about the load-bearing shaftway walls of the elevator core, which were made without concrete."

You are confused by the terminology. The walls of the elevator shafts (and the stairwells) were wall-boarded:

"Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings' high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core."

The drywall, as explained previously, is only a specific portion of the core structure.

These are the facts, as regard your explosive rebar "theory":

1) I've made personal inquiries of three friends, with extensive experience in construction and military demolitions, not one of them has every heard of C4 coated rebar, neither have they heard of new commercial buildings being pre-wired with scuttling charges.

You display the same propagandist style as JP in reintroducing your initial argument as if it had not already been addressed and disposed of.

2) I have proven that the WTC towers did not use reinforced concrete as structural elements. Even if C4 coated rebar was a reality, and it isn't, it could not have been employed in the construction of the WTC towers, as scuttling charges, since reinforced concrete was not used as a structural element of the towers.

You wasted our time proving that the decking concrete was not structural.

You are confused by the terminology. You wasted our time proving that the decking concrete was not structural.

I just proved to everyone on this board that reinforced concrete WAS NOT used as a structural element in the WTC towers -- unless you want to claim that the people who run New York's Skyscraper Museum are part of the "conspiracy" also. If there was no reinforced concrete used in the structure of the WTC towers, your exploding rebar "theory" DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

You just ignore facts that don't fit neatly into your crackpot "theories".

Man, you really are sick.

You just ignore facts that don't fit neatly into your crackpot "theories".

The biggest 'crackpot theory' is that lurid fairy tale about the ghostly, bed sheet wearing Arab galoot, who somehow stood down the NORAD air defense system in the most patrolled airspace on the Planet and then got Arabs on board FOUR Passenger Jets without anyone noticing, recording their names or filming them. Then these geniuses managed to overpower ALL the Flight crews and although unable to obtain permission to fly puddle jumper crop dusting planes, they managed to fly these giant Aircraft with uncanny precision and skill hitting three of their targets killing three thousand Americans because, 'they hate your freedoms'!

Sheeesh! And you guys actually believe that?

Really?

And you believe that after all that terrible stuff went on, on 911, Larry Silverstein gets to collect gazillions in insurance dollars all because of a bizarre conjunction of coincidences the odds of which happening being mathematically incalculable in their improbability?

Listen Fiss my old mate, you're a smart fellow, you can see opportunity when it beckons. Why stay in smelly old Jew York and risk being mugged by a nigger? Why don't you and JP join forces and take advantage of my earlier offer ie, I happen to have SOLE AGENCY for this large-ish Island off southern Australia called TASMANIA. Beautiful cool temperate climate, lovely beaches and forests, only two species of snakes (both kill) No GM food, no Niggers to speak of and great fishing.

People on it are sometimes called 'Taswegians', it's true some do have two heads, but they all pay a nice rent. I can let you guys have it for a steal!This is a top investment!

Trust me.

I just proved to everyone on this board that reinforced concrete WAS NOT used as a structural element in the WTC towers -- unless you want to claim that the people who run New York's Skyscraper Museum are part of the "conspiracy" also. If there was no reinforced concrete used in the structure of the WTC towers, your exploding rebar "theory" DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

You just ignore facts that don't fit neatly into your crackpot "theories".

Man, you really are sick.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:QXI-U1mTl3sJ:web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%2520VI%2520Materials%2520%26%2520Structures.pdf+concrete+core+WTC+robertson&hl=en

Materials and structure

Oral Buyukozturk
Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering, MIT

Franz-Josef Ulm
Esther and Harold E. Edgerton Associate Professor of
Civil & Environmental Engineering, MIT

"The 24m × 42m core was composed of 44 box columns. The core comprises steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete infill panels designed to share part of the gravity loads."

http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

Evidence of Controlled Demolition

"This core is built of sheer concrete reinforced by 44 beams of construction grade steel which were sealed in asbestos."

Thanks for writing. The statement you reference was made by the structural engineer of the building, who is speaking most directly about the load-bearing shaftway walls of the elevator core, which were made without concrete.

Repeat after me:

the shaftway walls - not the perimeter of the core.

the shaftway walls - not the perimeter of the core.

the shaftway walls - not the perimeter of the core.