Where do you find my claim of such wiring here that is separate from the descriptions of "setting detonators"?
Such does not exist there.
In fact, there's no coherent description of how the detonators were set or used there.
I do describe the detonation systems but they were installed since the new lease on the WTC. And not sitting around where they might be observed.
There was no time after the new lease to install sufficient detonation systems.
There was the powerdown 2 days before 9-11 where WTC 2 was without security for 38 hours before the demo.
Insufficient time to wire up detonation systems. Definitely insufficient time to conceal the work.
Each floor panel was separate and was an explosive circuit. Each had to be connected to each other by det cord or with a delay circuit wired into the security phone circuits.
Total nonsense. It would never be wired that way - a stray spark or feed from an eroding phone circuit would cause it to detonate.
Structures designed with self-destruct systems as you are attempting to claim this one was have completely independent, protected circuites, isolated from all other power, ground, or telephone feeds.
You are misrepresenting my information most likely because you haven't examined it. There must be an attitude that interferes with your perceptions.
Yes - love of knowledge and a firm grasp of reason... which you don't seem to possess.
I misrepresent nothing - your information is lousy.
There is also a serious deficit of knowledge about what high explosive events look like and what delay systems are capable of.
Used'em. Spent a decade in the military using C4 and other explosives. I've wired buildings, bridges, vehicles, telephone poles, and other things. Blown quite a few of them to smithereens, too.
The collapse of the towers did not look like a high explosive event, Chris. And that is the voice of experience.
Here is a video of firefighters discussing what they perceived as "detonations".
Hearing a 'boom' does not mean explosives were used. If you had any sense, you'd know that.
What is Chris' evidence of a concrete core?
1) A video in 1990 - one that no one else (except, allegedly, his ex-wife) has ever seen, one that does not exist in the archive records at PBS or at KCET, one that does not even exist in the entire catalogue of TV-Guide for the Santa Barbara area for the year of 1990.
2) An encyclopedia entry written by a person who had, at that point, never even been to the towers, and was writing on assumption, not fact.
3) A fuzzy photograph that shows nothing definite - only an indistinct, rounded shape in the dust cloud that could be concrete, or collapsing debris, or what was left of the steel-core and bedrock-walled core, partially covered with debris from above (explaining the apparent rounded shape)...
4) Deductive reasoning (since no 1300-ft long steel sections were visible during the collapse, they must not have existed). --Which is faulty, considering no 1300-ft long 'MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS' or elevator guide rails were visible, either.
On the other hand, numerous video and photographic evidence shows steel structural columns at the worksite; debris fields show clear evidence of steel support columns, but an insufficient amount of concrete; the most accurate construction plans that are available mention steel, not concrete; and a video documentary from 1983 clearly indicates steel, not concrete.
Why does concrete matter? Because Chris erroneously believes that the steel-reinforced concrete included one additional element: plastic explosives, applied directly to the rebar.
His evidence:
1) the violent collapse pictures showing the ejection of powdery-grey matter at the initiation of collapse - which can be equally accounted for by the presence of drywall, sheetrock, the concrete in the floors themselves, the ash from all that burned office equipment, etc.
2) the apparenty excessive speed of collapse -- which he cannot prove is excessive, nor can he come up with a quantification of what is 'acceptable' versus what is not.
3) 'Total Pulverisation' of the towers - which debris evidence proves is wrong... He equivocates by claiming that observed debris came from the mall, not the towers themselves. But this, too, is wrong.
4) A magazine article in the late 70s which he claims explains the process of returning C4 to slurry state for underwater use - yet he won't divulge what magazine it was, or when he read the article.
Evidence against:
1) Shelf life of plastic explosives under OPTIMAL conditions is only between 15-20 years. He tries to get around this by claiming concrete acted as a better protectant; yet concrete during curing emits heat, is moist, and results in a material which allows more air exchange than cellophane. Further, any such material on the rebar would largely negate one of the purposes of rebar, and such a structure likely would have collapsed under natural stresses long before 2001.
2) Insufficient chemical residue to indicate the existence of plastic explosives, nor of det cord, wiring, or other apparatus.
3) No eyewitnesses over the lifespan of the towers noticed anything odd - considering that wiring for the detonators would have to extend beyond the concrete, and no one ever noticed such wiring.
The only evidence he ever offers in support comes from his own website - owned, operated, and administered by himself from his Isley St. home - and photos which lack clarity and definition, which he also hosts. For all we know, he's doctored those photos. I don't think he has, but he's never offered them in context of the locations he's gotten them from. Meanwhile, he's in flat and open denial of any contraverting evidence, including statements by construction and engineering personnel, photographs of construction, photographs of debris fields, etc. He expounds upon his own 'photographic' memory, but gets details wrong enough to really embarrass himself - if he had any shame, which he doesn't. Why should we trust his memory about concrete cores and magazine articles, when he can't remember the show's name was Ally McBeal, or the age of the mohawk he interviewed, or the station number of KCET, or anything else, really?
His memory is shot - and things he recalls from memory are suspect.
My suggestion to Chris is this: go back to worrying about the available algae contents of your local lakes and rivers. This, at least, is a real problem, with real solutions, and could benefit people. Raving for years on websites has gotten you no where at all, and never will. You're wasting your time here, while the oxygen levels of your home continue to diminish.
My suggestion to all the other participants on this thread: When you feel like replying to Chris, here, just copy and paste this or another of the good summations available, and walk away.
