Richard Gage Is Cruel

Richard is cruel. He could finish this now by acknowledging the composition of the core walls.

Before the insurance was paid the insurers wanted to know exactly what they were paying for. So they asked John Knapton. www.john-knapton.com...

The core comprises steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete infill panels.

With almost every other credible source claiming two layers of drywall one side and one the other we have to ask why the massive insurance payout was made for buildings containing concrete panels between the drywall in the core walls. Check the photographic evidence of the stumps of the towers and you'll see some indications of these concrete panels. Photographs of the buildings during destruction show striations as the rows of panels blow out.

Don't bother mentioning the fibreglass reinforced drywall lining the lift shafts, that's a different subject.

I've covered this subject here, www.abovetopsecret.com... and here, www.abovetopsecret.com...

Richard knows this, I've discussed it with him, but he won't acknowledge it publicly. He's enjoying the fight too much. He could finish it now and I call on him to do so. Acknowledge the concrete panels in the core walls, Richard.

Case solved, we just have to mop up the despicable vermin who have knowingly benefited from the 9/11 fraud.

a reply to: Kester

Didn't the actual architect of the towers already their his voice behind the conspiracy theorists?

a reply to: tavi45

Those who know and have a reputation to consider generally restrict themselves to dropping very heavy hints.

I prefer putting it as straight as I can.

a reply to: Kester

Richard is cruel. He could finish this now by acknowledging the composition of the core walls.

Or even he thinks that this claim is total rubbish?

Just a possibility i want to put out there

originally posted by: tavi45
Didn't the actual architect of the towers already their his voice behind the conspiracy theorists?

That wouldn't be possible since the original Chief Structural Engineer, John Skilling, died in 1998. He and his engineering firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle, & Jackson were the actual structural engineers of the Twin Towers.

You're referring to Leslie Robertson who was asked by Skilling and his firm to assist in the project. As an up-and-coming engineer, Robertson was responsible for the sway-reduction features of the towers while Skilling and his firm were responsible for everything else.

He acknowledges and confirms that

1- steel needs to be protected by more concrete to prevent collapse

2- that the towers collapse due to impacts and fire is of no surprise to him

So, how does this help any conspiracy theories?

Your entire thread just screams out the the anger
I have with 'truther's

We know now , that the Bush administration
had at least 16 different international Intel
Agencies warning them of a an attack,
U.S funding both the Saudi's and Pakistani
intel agencies with enough funds
to fuel wahabbism and the next
generation of Jihadis for the next 30 years
at least, while NORAD was too busy playing
war games to actually intercept domestic terrorism.

You anger me, you never needed explosive
thermite paint, drone planes or ' controlled demollition'

You had everything, a president that had sworn the oath,
thereby making anything that happened on his watch a
deriliction of duty. Do you think the men in uniform
would've been granted such a reprieve if they
had failed to protect their stations?

But no, you had multiple international
violation of law, constitutional rights
being so stamped on i'm actually afraid of
what I say in public, serviceman in total
deriliction of duty.

You had everything anyone needed
to call out that and every other administration
before or after, but we're discussing concrete.
Well done on turning what could have been
a serious discusion about whether American
nationals should face war crime charges,
into , look the towers look all exploded and drones!

You didn't need that at all

a reply to: DelegateZero88

You forgot to add the secret new laser technology that desintigrated the buildings into dust.

With Building #7 and all the relevant information on the table it angers(and amazes) me also! Thank god there are people right now looking into this from a new direction, even if it's still too little, too late.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Thorough study of the subject ends with strong conviction that the core walls contained reinforced concrete infill panels. This is denied by universities, engineering organisations and the controlled opposition 'Truth Movement'. The insurance money was paid for these panels.

Concentrate your research on the core wall components and you too will discover this glaring anomaly.

When I brought the subject up Richard's body language showed he took it very seriously. He's having too much fun watching the traitors squirm. He doesn't want to administer the coup de grâce. I do.

originally posted by: DelegateZero88
..... look the towers look all exploded and drones!

a reply to: AnteBellum

A very experienced British bomb disposal technician said, "Where's all the steel? I've worked on lots of car bombs etc. There's always a lot of wreckage. There was a lot of steel in those buildings. Where is it?" The dust cloud was visible with the naked eye from the space station. Putting these two together suggests some form of technology reduced much of the steel into tiny, airborne particles. The explosives within the concrete panels bent some of the steel into extraordinary shapes.

I'll leave the thought clouding anger to others. I'll share in the amazement though. How could anyone really think only one technology was used and then submerge themselves in debate over which technology alone was used on the day?

Richard Gage doesn't want to 'solve' 911.
He knows that if he tried his points would be quickly rebuffed by experts.
His whole goal is to perpetuate speculation so that he may continue his sole income source.

Much like the speculation that pharma companies could solve diabetes but refuse because they could no longer sell insulin.

originally posted by: samkent
He knows that if he tried his points would be quickly rebuffed by experts.

So, all of the Masters and PhD.- degreed architects and engineers aren't experts? Only those who support the official conspiracy theory are experts?

Come on now. Many of these experts on both sides of the fence come from the same schools.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

So, all of the Masters and PhD.- degreed architects and engineers aren't experts? Only those who support the official conspiracy theory are experts?

Well now to be fair among its experts they list people who have BSE's in stuff like marine engineering or IT development and so on.

I do not doubt that they do have individuals who are very qualified in the relevant fields of study but they are guilty of fluffing up their numbers by listing people who one would not typically say would be a authority on building collapse analysis.

With almost every other credible source claiming two layers of drywall one side and one the other we have to ask why the massive insurance payout was made for buildings containing concrete panels between the drywall in the core walls.

I see no evidence presented in any of your links that it is true that the insurance payment was in any way linked to the supposed concrete panels. Nor have I ever seen any evidence that there were any such 'reinforced concrete infill panels' used in any steel framed building at all, besides Knowlton. It's worth noting that knowlton's illustrated page has no diagrams or photographs showing these supposed panels.

The most logical conclusion is that Knowlton is mistaken in that description of the WTC twin towes core structure.

I'm not sure why you're obsessed with richard gage in particular, since he is just one among a multitude of architects and engineers who have not acknowledged the existence of these phantom panels.

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

originally posted by: samkent
He knows that if he tried his points would be quickly rebuffed by experts.

So, all of the Masters and PhD.- degreed architects and engineers aren't experts? Only those who support the official conspiracy theory are experts?

AE911 truth petition signers are completely beside the point. There is nothing in the petition that indicates that there were any 'reinforced concrete infill panels in the twin towers core structure. And I might add that signers of the petition do not endorse any theories at all as to the events of 9/11; the petition is only a call for a new investigation.

a reply to: DrEugeneFixer

I'm not disagreeing with that at all, and I never said there was concrete in the cores of the towers. I've not seen in any drawing, sketch, print, or any other construction paraphernalia that shows concrete anywhere in the cores of the towers.

Four inches of a lightweight concrete mix was used for the flooring. To anyone's knowledge, that is the extent of concrete used within the twin towers.

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

originally posted by: samkent
He knows that if he tried his points would be quickly rebuffed by experts.

So, all of the Masters and PhD.- degreed architects and engineers aren't experts? Only those who support the official conspiracy theory are experts?

Come on now. Many of these experts on both sides of the fence come from the same schools.

They might be experts.

Let's see their body of work prior to 9/11 to judge if they were.

And let's see if they've used their expertise to produce anything that seriously challenges NIST.

Bet you can't really do either....

a reply to: DrEugeneFixer

AE911 truth petition signers are completely beside the point.

No they are a big part of the point.
Most of the signers do not have the expertice in the fields needed to substantiate the claims of a conspiracy.
But most of the conspiracy believers think that any engineering degree qualifies the person in all fields.

Even their fearless leader RG falls short in one important requirement for any valid investigation.
He didn't see any of the evidence in the first person.
All of his evidence comes from Youtube.

Anyone could beat a speeding ticket if the police evidence was a Youtube video.