Twin Tower Deception and Demolition Video

I don't know how furthering this discussion will help ...but does remind me of an argument I had with the wife. Her assertion is skyscrapers are "designed to fall apart in nice small pieces for safety reasons" ...so in an event such 9/11 it doesn't damage the surroundings. After I stopped laughing I tried to explain that buildings are built so catastrophic failure does not occer ...i.e. the building falls down quite whole....not pulverised into miles of debris...in the event of an accident. This theory takes it to new level.
My only other issue is Chris' claims of what is needed to replicate the towers destruction .....I'd like to know where your pyrotechnical ordinance knowledge comes from?

This is by far the best explanation for the amount of dust we saw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDark71

I don't know how furthering this discussion will help ...but does remind me of an argument I had with the wife. Her assertion is skyscrapers are "designed to fall apart in nice small pieces for safety reasons" ...so in an event such 9/11 it doesn't damage the surroundings. After I stopped laughing I tried to explain that buildings are built so catastrophic failure does not occer ...i.e. the building falls down quite whole....not pulverised into miles of debris...in the event of an accident. This theory takes it to new level.
My only other issue is Chris' claims of what is needed to replicate the towers destruction .....I'd like to know where your pyrotechnical ordinance knowledge comes from?

---

Wow Dark, you're MARRIED???

Well Auggie .....I was saving myself for you but you were all tied up with Royster so.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDark71

Well Auggie .....I was saving myself for you but you were all tied up with Royster so.....

---

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDark71

My only other issue is Chris' claims of what is needed to replicate the towers destruction .....I'd like to know where your pyrotechnical ordinance knowledge comes from?

---

In 1984 I worked for about 4 months as a driller on a project under a licensed blaster and gained a great deal of understanding of how explosives did the damage they do. Following that I read the blasters handbook and another text dealing with the spectrum of materials in use. Over the years I've encountered a number of ex military people who have had considerable experience in demolition with high density high explosives, of course I picked their brains.

As a driller I learned how critical it was to get the explosives perfectly centered. Distribution was something that became obvious through study as the blasting I was doing only did one shot at a time except for the pre shear of the cut slope. After the shearing of the cut slope the mass was taken out one shot at a time with a technique called "cushion blasting" utilizing ANFO in 10 foot vertical benches.

If the explosives are not centered, complete breakage does not occur. What happens is a hole is blown out the side and the rock formation or concrete in the case of the towers is left mostly whole. In the case of the towers, the reduction to sand and gravel is not short of phenomenal. When I was blasting I felt lucky to get 30% breakage down to particulate. At the WTC there was 100% breakage where detonation occurred per plan.

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001...c/pdrm1943.jpg

I have thought that perhaps cameras were confiscated at GZ because there was an intention to prevent recording hydraulic breakers busting up the few large pieces of concrete that were left lying around.

Chris..agreed .....but none of us have any clue what type of explosives the military uses or used. C-4 is what 60 years old? I'm sure they have come up with some pretty amazing technologies concerning explosives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eckolaker

This is by far the best explanation for the amount of dust we saw.

---

Yea, the dust is a real issue. Dr. Ron Larsen Ph.D was adamant about finding a solid explanation for that factor. He found some crude volumetric calculations of the city streets, expansion rates, particle size and found a major puzzle therein.

Actually Hoffmans site in 2002 got me thinking with the dust issue. That thinking led me to totally abandon the web as far as an information source of structural image items that might jog my as yet unopened memory of the 1990 documentary. My examination of the demo images and those of GZ really got me thinking about how to reduce concrete to its particulate components so completely.

As yet I had not realized the FEMA core deception or how completely it had been inserted into the as yet unformed movement.

The engineered concrete container for explosives became a logic puzzle to ascetain just how close its performance would come to what was seen and heard. I ran a projected design procedure/sequence past a couple of strcutural engineers and they were okay with how the rebar size, wall thickness and coating thickness could be balanced to get enough explosive on a bar that was selected oversize, making a stronger wall to accomodate enough plastic explosive coating without loosening the grip of the concrete on the bar by being too thick, an important aspect of the shear wall.

When the amount of square area of concrete exposed directly in very close proximity at the center of a concrete container with a breaching pressure just adequate for the quantity of explosive, the maximum pressures attainable are found very uniformly over the centralized rebar grid. That maximum pressure equates to a shockwave that just shreds concrete after the material in close proximity is reduced to the absolute minumum size particle. Iron is easily bonded to silica and calcium under those conditions as well.

For me, when I remembered the 2 tempered steel plates in the floors around the columns, I really felt as though I had a handle on a large part of the the methods used. Later I realized that the type and color of particulate, dust etc. could be equated to the type of different devices or explosive circuits in the buildings. The iron micropheres particulary. I made a page about it.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html

myspace has deleted 4 threads having this url of this video.

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition I

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition II

It should be clear that only information dangerous to the perpetrators would be removed from Rupert Murdochs space.

As Dr. Ron Larsen, Ph.D. in physics from Cornell University says, "You know you are over the target when you start taking flak.".

BTW, everyweek day AM (except tomorrow) Dr. Larsen and I are live for 1 hour with a mix of politics and 9-11 information.

9:00 AM and 10:00 AM CST, (7:00 AM to 8:00 PST) weekdays through the week. Here is the web radio url,

http://www.live365.com/stations/ronelar

I believe that a copy of the PBS program you're seeking was recently (in June) for sale on Craigslist in Hartford. The link is dead now, but it gave me the idea that Craigslist may be a good way to find it. I found the link simply by googling the title of the documentary. Perhaps if you did this every day, you'd find a copy.

Also, I've not been able to find anything on building codes that would allow or require explosives to be built into a skyscraper. If you could show that this has been done before in other buildings, it would make your thesis much more believable. Most of the resistance I see to your theory is that people just can't believe that the codes would allow people to work in a building riddled with C-4.

Good luck and keep up the good work.
SD